LIBRARY 

UNIVE  OliY  Of 
CALIFORNIA 

SAN  DIEGO 


p 


THE  VENEZUELAN   BOUNDARY 
CONTROVERSY 


THE 

STAFFORD  LITTLE  LECTURES 

PUBLISHED  BY 
PRINCETON  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

The  Two  Hague  Conferences,  by  JOSEPH  H.  CHOATE. 
Cloth,  124  pp.,  $1.00  net,  by  mail  $1.06. 

Experiments  in  Government  and  the  Essentials  of 
the  Constitution,  by  ELIHU  ROOT.  Cloth,  88  pp., 
$1.00  net,  by  mail  $1.06. 

The  Independence  of  the  Executive,  by  GROVER 
CLEVELAND.  Cloth,  90  pp.,  $1.00  net,  by  mail  $1.06. 

The  Government  in  the  Chicago  Strike  of  1894,  by 
GROVER  CLEVELAND.  Cloth,  57  pp.,  $1.00  net,  by  mail 
$1.06. 

The  Venezuelan  Boundary  Controversy,  by  GROVER 
CLEVELAND.  Cloth,  130  pp.,  $1.00  net,  by  mail  $1.06. 


THK   CLEVELAND   MEMORIAL   TOWER 

GRADUATE    COLLEGE 

PRINCETON 


THE  VENEZUELAN 
BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY 


BY 

GROVER  CLEVELAND 


PRINCETON  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
PRINCETON 

LONDON:     HUMPHREY  MILFORD 
OXFORD  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

1913 


Copyright,  1913,  by 
PRINCETON  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 

Published  October,  1913 


PREFATORY   NOTE 

President  Cleveland  first  visited  Princeton  at 
the  time  of  the  Sesquicentennial  Celebration 
and  made  the  chief  address  of  that  occasion  on 
October  22,  1896.  A  few  months  later  he 
retired  from  the  Presidency  and  made  Prince- 
ton his  home  for  the  remaining  eleven  years  of 
his  life.  For  the  last  seven  of  these  years  he 
served  as  Trustee  of  Princeton  University  and 
for  the  closing  four  years  also  acted  as  Chair- 
man of  the  Committee  on  the  Graduate  School 
having  special  charge  of  the  project  for  the 
residential  Graduate  College.  He  died  on  June 
24,  1908,  and  was  buried,  as  he  desired,  in 
his  family  plot  in  Princeton.  By  express  pro- 
vision of  his  will  the  only  monument  to  mark 
his  grave  was  to  be  the  simple  one  which  has 
already  been  erected. 

Shortly  after  Mr.  Cleveland  came  to  live  in 
Princeton  it  was  proposed  to  found  a  Lecture- 
ship on  Public  Affairs  in  his  honor.  In  the 


iv  PREFATORY  NOTE 

early  summer  of  1899  Mr.  Henry  Stafford 
Little,  an  alumnus  of  the  University,  endowed 
the  lectureship  and  expressed  the  hope  that  Mr. 
Cleveland  would  consent  to  hold  it,  or  at  any 
rate  to  be  the  first  incumbent.  Mr.  Cleveland 
was  reluctant  to  undertake  any  new  work  at 
that  time,  but  on  receiving  special  word  from 
Mr.  Little,  who  was  then  critically  ill,  agreed 
to  prepare  an  address  for  the  next  year. 

On  April  9  and  10,  1900,  every  seat  in 
Alexander  Hall  was  taken  and  there  were 
throngs  standing  to  hear  his  two  addresses  on 
"The  Independence  of  the  Executive."  The 
next  spring  he  lectured  twice  on  "The  Vene- 
zuelan Boundary  Question."  For  the  next  two 
years  there  were  no  lectures,  and  in  1904 
Mr.  Cleveland  read  one  lecture  on  "The 
Government  in  the  Chicago  Strike."  He 
always  had  crowded  audiences,  both  for  him- 
self and  the  grave  importance  of  the  questions 
he  treated.  He  was  heard  with  the  closest 
attention  and  repeatedly  welcomed  with  affec- 
tionate enthusiasm. 

Seventeen  years  ago  to  the  day  since  Mr. 
Cleveland  first  spoke  in  Princeton,  his  Prince- 


PREFATORY  NOTE  v 

ton  lectures  are  now  republished  in  expanded 
form  on  the  day  of  the  dedication  of  the 
Graduate  College  he  so  strongly  supported  and 
did  not  live  to  see  realized,  and  also  the  dedi- 
cation day  of  the  Cleveland  Memorial  Tower, 
erected  by  national  subscription  and  built  into 
the  Graduate  College  for  which  he  labored. 

The  lectures  here  reprinted  are  disclosures 
of  the  meaning  of  important  happenings  in  our 
national  history.  They  are  even  more;  for 
they  make  clear  as  light  that  plain,  strict,  un- 
swerving and  unaffected  honesty  which  was 
the  vigorous  central  power  in  Grover  Cleve- 
land's life.  It  is  well  his  words  should  be 
heard  again  at  the  time  we  gather  to  dedicate 
his  national  monument. 

ANDREW  F.  WEST. 

The  Graduate  College 

Princeton  University 

October  22,  1913 


THE  VENEZUELAN  BOUNDARY 
CONTROVERSY 

I 

There  is  no  better  illustration  of  the  truth 
that  nations  and  individuals  are  affected  in  the 
same  manner  by  like  causes  than  is  often  fur- 
nished by  the  beginning,  progress,  and  results 
of  a  national  boundary  dispute.  We  all  know 
that  among  individuals,  when  neighbors  have 
entered  upon  a  quarrel  concerning  their  divi- 
sion-line or  the  location  of  a  line  fence,  they 
will  litigate  until  all  account  of  cost  and  all 
regard  for  the  merits  of  the  contention  give 
place  to  a  ruthless  and  all-dominating  deter- 
mination, by  fair  means  or  foul,  to  win;  and 
if  fisticuffs  and  forcible  possession  are  resorted 
to,  the  big,  strong  neighbor  rejoices  in  his 
strength  as  he  mauls  and  disfigures  his  small 
and  weak  antagonist. 

It  will  be  found  that  nations  tehave  in  like 
fashion.  One  or  the  other  of  two  national 


2  THE  VENEZUELAN 

neighbors  claims  that  their  dividing-line  should 
be  defined  or  rectified  in  a  certain  manner.  If 
this  is  questioned,  a  season  of  diplomatic  un- 
truthfulness  and  finesse  sometimes  intervenes 
for  the  sake  of  appearances.  Developments 
soon  follow,  however,  that  expose  a  grim  de- 
termination behind  fine  phrases  of  diplomacy; 
and  in  the  end  the  weaker  nation  frequently 
awakens  to  the  fact  that  it  must  either  accede 
to  an  ultimatum  dictated  by  its  stronger  ad- 
versary, or  look  in  the  face  of  war  and  a  spolia- 
tion of  its  territory;  and  if  such  a  stage  is 
reached,  superior  strength  and  fighting  ability, 
instead  of  suggesting  magnanimity,  are  grasp- 
ingly  used  to  enforce  extreme  demands  if  not 
to  consummate  extensive  conquest  or  complete 
subjugation. 

I  propose  to  call  attention  to  one  of  these  un- 
happy national  boundary  disputes,  between  the 
kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  the  South 
American  republic  of  Venezuela,  involving  the 
boundary-line  separating  Venezuela  from  the 
English  colony  of  British  Guiana,  which  ad- 
joins Venezuela  on  the  east. 

Venezuela,  once  a  Spanish  possession,  de- 
clared her  independence  in  1810,  and  a  few 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  3 

years  afterward  united  with  two  other  of 
Spain's  revolted  colonies  in  forming  the  old 
Colombian  federal  union,  which  was  recog- 
nized by  the  United  States  in  1822.  In  1836 
this  union  was  dissolved  and  Venezuela  became 
again  a  separate  and  independent  republic,  be- 
ing promptly  recognized  as  such  by  our  Gov- 
ernment and  by  other  powers.  Spain,  however, 
halted  in  her  recognition  until  1845,  when  she 
quite  superfluously  ceded  to  Venezuela  by 
treaty  the  territory  which  as  an  independent 
republic  she  had  actually  owned  and  possessed 
since  1810.  But  neither  in  this  treaty  nor  in 
any  other  mention  of  the  area  of  the  republic 
were  its  boundaries  described  with  more  defi- 
niteness  than  as  being  "the  same  as  those  which 
marked  the  ancient  viceroyalty  and  captaincy- 
general  of  New  Granada  and  Venezuela  in  the 
year  1810." 

England  derived  title  to  the  colony  of 
Guiana  from  Holland  in  1814,  by  a  treaty  in 
which  the  territory  was  described  as  "the  Caj>e 
of  Good  Hope  and  the  establishments  of  I)e- 
mcrara,  Essequibo,  and  Berbice."  No  boun- 
daries of  those  settlements  or  "establishments" 
were  given  in  the  treaty,  nor  does  it  appear  that 


4  THE  VENEZUELAN 

any  such  boundaries  had  ever  been  particularly 
defined. 

It  is  quite  apparent  that  the  limits  of  these 
adjoining  countries  thus  lacking  any  mention 
of  definite  metes  and  bounds,  were  in  need  of 
extraneous  assistance  before  they  could  be  ex- 
actly fixed,  and  that  their  proper  location  was 
quite  likely  to  lead  to  serious  disagreement. 
In  such  circumstances  threatening  complica- 
tions can  frequently  be  avoided  if  the  adjoin- 
ing neighbors  agree  upon  a  divisional  line 
promptly,  and  before  their  demands  are  stimu- 
lated and  their  tenacity  increased  by  a  real  or 
fancied  advance  in  the  value  of  the  possessions 
to  be  divided,  or  other  incidents  have  intervened 
to  render  it  more  difficult  to  make  concessions. 

I  shall  not  attempt  to  sketch  the  facts  and 
arguments  that  bear  upon  the  exact  merits 
of  this  boundary  controversy  between  Great 
Britain  and  Venezuela.  They  have  been  thor- 
oughly examined  by  an  arbitral  tribunal  to 
which  the  entire  difficulty  was  referred,  and  by 
whose  determination  the  boundary  between  the 
two  countries  has  been  fixed — perhaps  in  strict 
accord  with  justice,  but  at  all  events  finally  and 
irrevocably.  Inasmuch,  however,  as  our  own 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  5 

country  became  in  a  sense  involved  in  the  con- 
troversy, or  at  least  deeply  concerned  in  its 
settlement,  I  have  thought  there  might  be  in- 
terest in  an  explanation  of  the  manner  and  the 
processes  by  which  the  interposition  of  the 
United  States  Government  was  brought  about. 
I  must  not  be  expected  to  exclude  from  men- 
tion every  circumstance  that  may  relate  to  the 
merits  of  the  dispute  as  between  the  parties 
primarily  concerned ;  but  so  far  as  I  make  use 
of  such  circumstances  I  intend  to  do  so  only 
in  aid  and  simplification  of  the  explanation  I 
have  undertaken. 

This  dispute  began  in  1841.  On  October  5 
of  that  year  the  Venezuelan  minister  to  Great 
Britain,  in  a  note  to  Lord  Aberdeen,  Princi- 
pal Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs, 
after  reminding  the  secretary  that  a  proposal 
made  by  Venezuela  on  the  28th  of  January, 
1841,  for  joint  action  in  the  matter  of  fixing  a 
divisional  boundary,  still  awaited  the  accept- 
ance of  Great  Britain,  wrote  as  follows: 

The  Honorable  Earl  of  Aberdeen  may  now 
judge  of  the  surprise  of  the  Government  of  Ven- 
ezuela upon  learning  that  in  the  territory  of  the 


6  THE  VENEZUELAN 

Republic  a  sentry-box  has  been  erected  upon  which 
the  British  flag  has  been  raised.  The  Venezuelan 
Government  is  in  ignorance  of  the  origin  and 
purport  of  these  proceedings,  and  hopes  that  they 
may  receive  some  satisfactory  explanation  of  this 
action.  In  the  meantime  the  undersigned,  in 
compliance  with  the  instructions  communicated  to 
him,  urges  upon  the  Honorable  Earl  of  Aberdeen 
the  necessity  of  entering  into  a  treaty  of  boun- 
daries as  a  previous  step  to  the  fixation  of  limits, 
and  begs  to  ask  for  an  answer  to  the  above- 
mentioned  communication  of  January  28. 

Lord  Aberdeen,  in  his  reply,  dated  October 
21,  1841,  makes  the  following  statement: 

Her  Majesty's  Government  has  received  from 
the  Governor  of  British  Guiana,  Mr.  Schom- 
burgk's  report  of  his  proceedings  in  execution  of 
the  commission  with  which  he  has  been  charged. 
That  report  states  that  Mr.  Schomburgk  set  out 
from  Demerara  in  April  last  and  was  on  his  re- 
turn to  the  Essequibo  River  at  the  end  of  June. 
It  appears  that  Mr.  Schomburgk  planted  boun- 
dary posts  at  certain  points  of  the  country  which 
he  has  surveyed,  and  that  he  was  fully  aware  that 
the  demarcation  so  made  was  merely  a  prelimin- 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  7 

ary  measure,  open  to  further  discussion  between 
the  Governments  of  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela. 
But  it  does  not  appear  that  Mr.  Schomburgk  left 
behind  him  any  guard-house,  sentry-box,  or  other 
building  having  the  British  flag. 

With  respect  to  the  proposal  of  the  Venezuelan 
Government  that  the  Governments  of  Great 
Britain  and  Venezuela  should  conclude  a  treaty 
as  a  preliminary  step  to  the  demarcation  of  the 
boundaries  between  British  Guiana  and  Vene- 
zuela, the  undersigned  begs  leave  to  observe  that 
it  appears  to  him  that  if  it  should  be  necessary  to 
make  a  treaty  upon  the  subject  of  the  boundaries 
in  question,  such  a  measure  should  follow  rather 
than  precede  the  operation  of  the  survey. 

In  a  communication  dated  the  i8th  of  No- 
vember, 1841,  the  Venezuelan  minister,  after 
again  complaining  of  the  acts  of  Schomburgk 
and  alleging  that  he  "has  planted  at  a  point  on 
the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco  several  posts  bearing 
Her  Majesty's  initials,  and  raised  at  the  same 
place,  with  a  show  of  armed  forces,  the  British 
flag,  and  also  performed  several  other  acts  of 
dominion  and  government,"  refers  to  the  great 
dissatisfaction  aroused  in  Venezuela  by  what 
he  calls  "this  undeserved  offense,"  and  adds: 


8  THE  VENEZUELAN 

"The  undersigned  therefore  has  no  doubts  but 
that  he  will  obtain  from  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment a  reparation  for  the  wrong  done  to 
the  dignity  of  the  Republic,  and  that  those 
signs  which  have  so  unpleasantly  shaken  public 
confidence  will  be  ordered  removed." 

No  early  response  having  been  made  to  this 
communication,  another  was  addressed  to  Lord 
Aberdeen,  dated  December  8,  1841,  in  which 
the  representative  of  Venezuela  refers  to  his 
previous  unanswered  note  and  to  a  recent  order 
received  from  his  government,  which  he  says 
directs  him  "to  insist  not  only  upon  the  con- 
clusion of  a  treaty  fixing  the  boundaries  be- 
tween Venezuela  and  British  Guiana,  but  also, 
and  this  very  particularly,  to  insist  upon  the 
removal  of  the  signs  set  up,  contrary  to  all 
rights,  by  the  surveyor  R.  H.  Schomburgk  in 
Barima  and  in  other  points  of  the  Venezuelan 
territory";  and  he  continues:  "In  his  afore- 
mentioned communication  of  the  i8th  of  last 
month,  the  undersigned  has  already  informed 
the  Honorable  Earl  of  Aberdeen  of  the  dis- 
satisfaction prevailing  among  the  Venezuelans 
on  this  account,  and  now  adds  that  this  dis- 
satisfaction, far  from  diminishing,  grows 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  9 

stronger — as  is  but  natural — as  time  goes  on 
and  no  reparation  of  the  wrongs  is  made." 

These  two  notes  of  the  Venezuelan  minister 
were  answered  on  the  eleventh  day  of  Decem- 
ber, 1841.  In  his  reply  Lord  Aberdeen  says: 

The  undersigned  begs  leave  to  refer  to  his  note 
of  the  2 1st  of  October  last,  in  which  he  explained 
that  the  proceeding  of  Mr.  Schomburgk  in  plant- 
ing boundary  posts  at  certain  points  of  the 
country  which  he  has  surveyed  was  merely  a 
preliminary  measure  open  to  future  discussion 
between  the  two  Governments,  and  that  it  would 
be  premature  to  make  a  boundary  treaty  before 
the  survey  will  be  completed.  The  undersigned 
has  only  further  to  state  that  much  unnecessary 
inconvenience  would  result  from  the  removal  of 
the  posts  fixed  by  Mr.  Schomburgk,  as  they  will 
afford  the  only  tangible  means  by  which  Her 
Majesty's  Government  can  be  prepared  to  discuss 
the  question  of  the  boundaries  with  the  Govern- 
ment of  Venezuela.  These  posts  were  erected 
for  that  express  purpose,  and  not,  as  the  Ven- 
ezuelan Government  appears  to  apprehend,  as 
indications  of  dominion  and  empire  on  the  part 
of  Great  Britain. 


10  THE  VENEZUELAN 

In  a  reply  to  this  note,  after  referring  to  the 
explanation  of  the  purpose  of  these  posts  or 
signs  which  Lord  Aberdeen  had  given,  it  was 
said,  in  further  urging  their  removal :  "The 
undersigned  regrets  to  be  obliged  to  again  in- 
sist upon  this  point ;  but  the  damages  sustained 
by  Venezuela  on  account  of  the  permanence 
of  said  signs  are  so  serious  that  he  hopes  in 
view  of  those  facts  that  the  trouble  resulting 
from  their  removal  may  not  appear  useless." 
The  minister  followed  this  insistence  with  such 
earnest  argument  that  on  the  thirty-first  day  of 
January,  1842,  nearly  four  months  after  the 
matter  was  first  agitated,  Lord  Aberdeen  in- 
formed the  Venezuelan  minister  that  instruc- 
tions would  be  sent  to  the  governor  of  British 
Guiana  directing  him  to  remove  the  posts 
which  had  been  placed  by  Mr.  Schomburgk 
near  the  Orinoco.  He,  however,  accompanied 
this  assurance  with  the  distinct  declaration 
"that  although,  in  order  to  put  an  end  to  the 
misapprehension  which  appears  to  prevail  in 
Venezuela  with  regard  to  the  object  of  Mr. 
Schomburgk's  survey,  the  undersigned  has 
consented  to  comply  with  the  renewed  repre- 
sentation of  the  Minister  upon  this  affair,  Her 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  n 

'/Majesty's  Government  must  not  be  understood 
to  abandon  any  portion  of  the  rights  of  Great 
Britain  over  the  territory  which  was  formerly 
held  by  the  Dutch  in  Guiana." 

It  should  be  here  stated  that  the  work  which 
Schomburgk  performed  at  the  instance  of  the 
British  Government  consisted  not  only  in  plac- 
ing monuments  of  some  sort  at  the  mouth  of 
the  Orinoco  River,  upon  territory  claimed  by 
Venezuela,  but  also  in  locating  from  such 
monuments  a  complete  dividing-line  running 
far  inland  and  annexing  to  British  Guiana  on 
the  west  a  large  region  which  Venezuela  also 
claimed.  This  line,  as  originally  located  or  as 
afterward  still  further  extended  to  the  west, 
came  to  be  called  "the  Schomburgk  line." 

The  Orinoco  River,  flowing  eastward  to  the 
sea,  is  a  very  broad  and  deep  waterway,  which, 
with  its  affluents,  would  in  any  event,  and  how- 
ever the  bounds  of  Venezuela  might  be  limited, 
traverse  a  very  extensive  portion  of  that  coun- 
try's area;  and  its  control  and  free  navigation 
are  immensely  important  factors  in  the  prog- 
ress and  prosperity  of  the  republic.  Substan- 
tially at  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  and  on  its 
south  side,  two  quite  large  rivers,  the  Barima 


12  THE  VENEZUELAN 

and  the  Amacuro,  flow  into  the  sea.  The  re- 
gion adjacent  to  the  mouth  of  those  rivers  has, 
sometimes  at  least,  been  called  Barima;  and  it 
was  here  that  the  posts  or  signs  complained  of 
by  Venezuela  were  placed. 

The  coast  from  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco 
River  slopes  or  drops  to  the  east  and  south; 
and  some  distance  from  that  river's  mouth,  in 
the  directions  mentioned,  the  Essequibo,  a 
large  river  flowing  for  a  long  distance  from 
the  south,  empties  into  the  sea. 

After  the  correspondence  I  have  mentioned, 
which  resulted  in  the  removal  of  the  so-called 
initial  monuments  of  the  Schomburgk  line  from 
the  Barima  region,  there  seems  to  have  been 
less  activity  in  the  boundary  discussion  until 
January  31,  1844,  when  the  Venezuelan  min- 
ister to  England  again  addressed  Lord  Aber- 
deen on  the  subject.  He  referred  to  the 
erection  of  the  Schomburgk  monuments  and  the 
complaints  of  Venezuela  on  that  account,  and 
stated  that  since  the  removal  of  those  monu- 
ments he  had  not  ceased  to  urge  Lord  Aber- 
deen "to  commence  without  delay  negotiations 
for  a  treaty  fixing  definitely  the  boundary-line 
that  shall  divide  the  two  countries."  He  adds 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  13 

the  following  very  sensible  statement:  "Al- 
though it  was  undoubtedly  the  duty  of  the  one 
who  promoted  this  question  to  take  the  first 
step  toward  the  negotiation  of  the  treaty,  the 
undersigned  being  well  aware  that  other  im- 
portant matters  claim  the  attention  of  Her 
Majesty's  Government,  and  as  he  ought  not  to 
wait  indefinitely,  hastens  to  propose  an  agree- 
ment which,  if  left  for  a  later  date,  may  be 
difficult  to  conclude."  It  is  disappointing  to 
observe  that  the  good  sense  exhibited  in  this 
statement  did  not  hold  out  to  the  end  of  the 
minister's  communication.  After  a  labored 
presentation  of  historical  incidents,  beginning 
with  the  discovery  of  the  American  continent, 
he  concludes  by  putting  forward  the  Essequibo 
River  as  the  proper  boundary-line  between  the 
two  countries.  This  was  a  proposition  of  such 
extreme  pretensions  that  the  Venezuelan  rep- 
resentative knew,  or  ought  to  have  known,  it 
would  not  be  considered  for  a  moment  by  the 
Government  of  Great  Britain ;  and  it  seems  to 
that  a  'diplomatic  error  was  made  when, 
failing  to  apprehend  the  fact  that  the  exigen- 
cies of  the  situation  called  for  a  show  of  con- 
cession, the  Venezuelan  minister,  instead  of 


I4  THE  VENEZUELAN 

intimating  a  disposition  to  negotiate,  gave 
Great  Britain  an  opportunity  to  be  first  in  mak- 
ing proposals  apparently  calculated  to  meet 
the  needs  of  conciliation  and  compromise. 

Thus  two  months  after  the  receipt  of  this 
communication, — on  the  thirtieth  day  of 
March,  1844, — Lord  Aberdeen  sent  his  reply. 
After  combating  the  allegations  contained  in 
the  letter  of  the  Venezuelan  representative,  he 
remarked  that  if  he  were  inclined  to  act  upon 
the  spirit  of  that  letter,  it  was  evident  that  he 
ought  to  claim  on  behalf  of  Great  Britain,  as 
the  rightful  successor  to  Holland,  all  the  coast 
from  the  Orinoco  to  the  Essequibo.  Then  fol- 
lows this  significant  declaration: 

But  the  undersigned  believes  that  the  nego- 
tiations would  not  be  free  from  difficulties  if 
claims  that  cannot  be  sustained  are  presented,  and 
shall  not  therefore  follow  Senor  Fortique's  ex- 
ample, but  state  here  the  concessions  that  Great 
Britain  is  disposed  to  make  of  her  rights, 
prompted  by  a  friendly  consideration  for  Ven- 
ezuela and  by  her  desire  to  avoid  all  cause  of 
serious  controversies  between  the  two  countries. 
Being  convinced  that  the  most  important  object 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  15 

for  the  interests  of  Venezuela  is  the  exclusive 
possession  of  the  Orinoco,  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment is  ready  to  yield  to  the  Republic  of 
Venezuela  a  portion  of  the  coast  sufficient  to  in- 
sure her  the  free  control  of  the  mouth  of  this  her 
principal  river,  and  to  prevent  its  being  under 
the  control  of  any  foreign  power. 

Lord  Aberdeen  further  declared  that,  "with 
this  end  in  view,  and  being  persuaded  that  a 
concession  of  the  greatest  importance  has  been 
made  to  Venezuela,"  he  would  consent  on  be- 
half of  Great  Britain  to  a  boundary  which  he 
particularly  defined,  and  in  general  terms  may 
be  described  as  beginning  in  the  mouth  of  the 
Moroco  River,  which  is  on  the  coast  southeast 
of  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco  River  and  about 
two  thirds  of  the  distance  between  that  point 
and  the  Essequibo  River,  said  boundary  run- 
ning inland  from  that  point  until  it  included 
in  its  course  considerably  more  territory  than 
was  embraced  within  the  original  Schombtirgk 
line,  though  it  excluded  the  region  embraced 
within  that  line  adjacent  to  the  Barima  and 
Amacuro  rivers  and  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco. 

This  boundary,  as  proposed  by  Lord  Aber- 


16  THE  VENEZUELAN 

deen,  was  not  satisfactory  to  Venezuela;  and 
*soon  after  its  submission  her  diplomatic  repre- 
sentative died.  This  interruption  was  quickly 
followed  by  a  long  period  of  distressing  inter- 
nal strifes  and  revolutions,  which  so  distracted 
and  disturbed  her  government  that  for  more 
than  thirty  years  she  was  not  in  condition  to 
renew  negotiations  for  an  adjustment  of  her 
territorial  limits. 

During  all  this  time  Great  Britain  seemed 
not  especially  unwilling  to  allow  these  negotia- 
tions to  remain  in  abeyance. 

This  interval  was  not,  however,  entirely  de- 
void of  boundary  incidents.  In  1850  great  ex- 
citement and  indignation  were  aroused  among 
the  Venezuelans  by  a  rumor  that  Great  Britain 
intended  to  take  possession  of  Venezuelan  Gui- 
ana, a  province  adjoining  British  Guiana  on 
the  west,  and  a  part  of  the  territory  claimed  by 
Venezuela ;  and  the  feeling  thus  engendered  be- 
came so  extreme,  both  among  the  people  and 
on  the  part  of  the  government  of  the  republic, 
that  all  remaining  friendliness  between  the 
two  countries  was  seriously  menaced.  Demon- 
strations indicating  that  Venezuela  was  de- 
termined to  repel  the  rumored  movement  as  an 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  17 

invasion  of  her  rights,  were  met  by  instructions 
given  by  Great  Britain  to  the  commander  of 
her  Majesty's  naval  forces  in  the  West  Indies 
as  to  the  course  he  was  to  pursue  if  the  Ven- 
ezuelan forces  should  construct  fortifications 
within  the  territory  in  dispute.  At  the  same 
time,  Mr.  Balford  Hinton  Wilson,  England's 
representative  at  Caracas,  in  a  note  addressed 
to  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  for  Vene- 
zuela, indignantly  characterized  these  disquiet- 
ing rumors  of  Great  Britain's  intention  to 
occupy  the  lands  mentioned,  as  mischievous, 
and  maliciously  false;  but  he  also  declared  that, 
on  the  other  hand,  her  Majesty's  Government 
would  not  see  with  indifference  the  aggressions 
of  Venezuela  upon  the  disputed  territory. 

This  note  contained,  in  addition,  a  rather  im- 
pressive pronouncement  in  these  words: 

The  Venezuelan  Government,  in  justice  to 
Great  Britain,  cannot  mistrust  for  a  moment  the 
sincerity  of  the  formal  declaration,  which  is  now 
made  in  the  name  and  by  the  express  order  of 
Her  Majesty's  Government,  that  Great  Britain  has 
no  intention  to  occupy  or  encroach  upon  the  terri- 
tory in  dispute ;  therefore  the  Venezuelan  Gov- 


1 8  THE  VENEZUELAN 

ernment,  in  an  equal  spirit  of  good  faith  and 
friendship,  cannot  refuse  to  make  a  similar 
declaration  to  Her  Majesty's  Government, 
namely,  that  Venezuela  herself  has  no  intention  to 
occupy  or  encroach  upon  the  territory  in  dispute. 

The  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  for  Vene- 
zuela responded  to  this  communication  in  the 
following  terms : 

The  undersigned  has  been  instructed  by  His 
Excellency  the  President  of  the  Republic  to  give 
the  following  answer:  The  Government  never 
could  be  persuaded  that  Great  Britain,  in  con- 
tempt of  the  negotiation  opened  on  the  subject 
and  the  alleged  rights  in  the  question  of  limits 
pending  between  the  two  countries,  would  want 
to  use  force  in  order  to  occupy  the  land  that  each 
side  claims — much  less  after  Mr.  Wilson's  re- 
peated assurance,  which  the  Executive  Power 
believes  to  have  been  most  sincere,  that  those 
imputations  had  no  foundation  whatever,  being, 
on  the  contrary,  quite  the  reverse  of  the  truth. 
Fully  confident  of  this,  and  fortified  by  the  pro- 
test embodied  in  the  note  referred  to,  the  Gov- 
ernment has  no  difficulty  in  declaring,  as  they 
do  declare,  that  Venezuela  has  no  intention  of 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  19 

occupying  or  encroaching  upon  any  portion  of 
the  territory  the  possession  of  which  is  in  con- 
troversy ;  neither  will  she  look  with  indifference 
on  a  contrary  proceeding  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain. 

In  furtherance  of  these  declarations  the 
English  Government  stipulated  that  it  would 
not  "order  or  sanction  such  occupations  or  en- 
croachments on  the  part  of  the  British  authori- 
ties" ;  and  Venezuela  agreed  on  her  part  to 
"instruct  the  authorities  of  Venezuelan  Guiana 
to  refrain  from  taking  any  step  which  might 
clash  with  the  engagement  hereby  made  by  the 
Government." 

I  suspect  there  was  some  justification  on 
each  side  for  the  accusations  afterward  inter- 
changed between  the  parties  that  this  under- 
standing or  agreement,  in  its  strict  letter  and 
spirit,  had  not  been  scrupulously  observed. 

As  we  now  pass  from  this  incident  to  a  date 
more  than  twenty-five  years  afterward,  when 
attempts  to  negotiate  for  a  settlement  of  the 
boundary  controversy  were  resumed,  it  may  be 
profitable,  before  going  further,  to  glance  at 
some  of  the  conditions  existing  at  the  time  of 
such  resumption. 


II 

In  1876 — thirty-two  years  after  the  discon- 
tinuance of  efforts  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain 
and  Venezuela  to  fix  by  agreement  a  line  which 
should  divide  their  possessions — Venezuela 
was  confronted,  upon  the  renewal  of  nego- 
tiations for  that  purpose,  by  the  following 
conditions : 

The  claim  by  her,  of  a  divisional  line, 
founded  upon  her  conception  of  strict  right, 
which  her  powerful  opponent  had  insisted 
could  not  in  any  way  be  plausibly  supported, 
and  which  therefore  she  would  in  no  event 
accept. 

An  indefiniteness  in  the  limits  claimed  by 
Great  Britain — so  great  that,  of  two  boundary- 
lines  indicated  or  suggested  by  her,  one  had 
been  plainly  declared  to  be  "merely  a  prelim- 
inary measure  open  to  future  discussion  be- 
tween the  Governments  of  Great  Britain  and 
Venezuela,"  while  the  other  was  distinctly 
claimed  to  be  based  not  on  any  acknowledg- 
20 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  2I 

ment  of  the  republic's  rights,  but  simply  upon 
generous  concessions  and  a  "desire  to  avoid  all 
cause  of  serious  controversies  between  the  two 
countries." 

A  controversy  growing  out  of  this  situation 
impossible  of  friendly  settlement  except  by 
such  arrangement  and  accommodation  as 
would  satisfy  Great  Britain,  or  by  a  submission 
of  the  dispute  to  arbitration. 

A  constant  danger  of  such  an  extension  of 
British  settlements  in  the  disputed  territory  as 
would  necessarily  complicate  the  situation  and 
furnish  a  convenient  pretext  for  the  refusal  of 
any  concession  respecting  the  lands  containing 
such  settlements. 

A  continual  profession  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain  of  her  present  readiness  to  make  benev- 
olent concessions  and  of  her  willingness  to  co- 
operate in  a  speedy  adjustment,  while  at  the 
same  time  neither  reducing  her  pretensions,  nor 
attempting  in  a  conspicuous  manner  to  hasten 
negotiations  to  a  conclusion. 

A  tremendous  disparity  in  power  and 
strength  between  Venezuela  and  her  adversary, 
which  gave  her  no  hope  of  defending  her  terri- 
tory or  preventing  its  annexation  to  the  pos- 


22  THE  VENEZUELAN 

sessions  of  Great  Britain  in  case  the  extremity 
of  force  or  war  was  reached. 

The  renewed  negotiations  began  with  a  com- 
munication dated  November  14,  1876,  ad- 
dressed by  the  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  for 
Venezuela  to  Lord  Derby,  then  Great  Britain's 
principal  Secretary  of  State.  In  this  communi- 
cation the  efforts  made  between  the  years  1841 
and  1844  to  establish  by  agreement  a  divisional 
line  between  the  two  countries,  and  their  inter- 
ruption, were  referred  to,  and  the  earnest  de- 
sire was  expressed  that  negotiations  for  that 
purpose  might  at  once  be  resumed.  The  minis- 
ter suggested  no  other  line  than  the  Essequibo 
River,  but  in  conclusion  declared  that  the  Pres- 
ident of  Venezuela  was  led  to  "hope  that  the 
solution  of  this  question,  already  for  so  many 
years  delayed,  will  be  a  work  of  very  speedy 
and  cordial  agreement." 

On  the  same  day  that  this  note  was  written 
to  Lord  Derby,  one  was  also  written  by  the 
same  Venezuelan  official  to  Mr.  Fish,  then  our 
Secretary  of  State.  After  speaking  of  the 
United  States  as  "the  most  powerful  and  the 
oldest  of  the  Republics  of  the  new  continent, 
and  called  on  to  lend  to  others  its  powerful 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  23 

moral  support  in  disputes  with  European  na- 
tions," the  minister  directs  attention  to  the 
boundary  controversy  between  Venezuela  and 
Great  Britain  and  the  great  necessity  of  bring- 
ing it  to  a  speedy  termination.  He  concludes 
as  follows:  "But  whatever  may  be  the  result 
of  the  new  steps  of  the  Government,  it  has  de- 
sired that  the  American  Government  might  at 
once  take  cognizance  of  them,  convinced,  as  it 
is,  that  it  will  give  the  subject  its  kind  consider- 
ation and  take  an  interest  in  having  due  jus- 
tice clone  to  Venezuela."  A  memorandum  was 
inclosed  with  the  note,  setting  forth  the  claims 
of  Venezuela  touching  the  boundary  location. 

This  appears  to  be  the  first  communication 
addressed  to  our  Government  on  the  subject  of 
a  controversy  in  which  we  afterward  became 
very  seriously  concerned. 

A  short  time  after  the  date  of  these  com- 
munications, a  Venezuelan  envoy  to  Great 
Britain  was  appointed ;  and,  on  the  thirteenth 
day  of  February,  1877,  he  addressed  to  Lord 
Derby  a  note  in  which,  after  asserting  the  right 
of  Venezuela  to  insist  upon  the  boundary  pre- 
viously claimed  by  her,  he  declared  the  will- 
ingness of  his  government  "to  settle  this 


24  THE  VENEZUELAN 

long-pending  question  in  the  most  amicable 
manner,"  and  suggested  either  the  acceptance 
of  a  boundary-line  such  as  would  result  from 
a  presentation  by  both  parties  of  Spanish  and 
Dutch  titles,  maps,  documents,  and  proofs  ex- 
isting before  the  advent  in  South  America  of 
either  Venezuela  or  British  Guiana,  or  the 
adoption  of  "a  conventional  line  fixed  by 
mutual  accord  between  the  Governments  of 
Venezuela  and  Great  Britain  after  a  careful 
and  friendly  consideration  of  the  case,  keeping 
in  view  the  documents  presented  by  both  sides, 
solely  with  the  object  of  reconciling  their  mu- 
tual interests,  and  to  fix  a  boundary  as  equit- 
able as  possible."  The  suggestion  is  made  that 
the  adoption  of  a  divisional  line  is  important 
"to  prevent  the  occurrence  of  serious  differ- 
ences in  the  future,  particularly  as  Guiana  is 
attracting  the  general  attention  of  the  world  on 
account  of  the  immense  riches  which  are  daily 
being  discovered  there." 

Let  us  here  note  that  this  renewal  by  Vene- 
zuela of  her  efforts  to  settle  her  boundary-line 
was  accompanied  by  two  new  features.  These, 
though  in  themselves  entirely  independent,  be- 
came so  related  to  each  other,  and  in  their 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  25 

subsequent  combination  and  development  they 
so  imperiously  affected  our  Government,  that 
their  coincident  appearance  at  this  particular 
stage  of  the  controversy  may  well  strike  us  as 
significant.  One  of  these  features  was  the 
abandonment  by  Venezuela  of  her  insistence 
upon  a  line  representing  her  extreme  claims, 
and  which  England  would  not  in  any  contin- 
gency accept,  thus  clearing  the  field  for  possi- 
ble arbitration;  and  the  other  was  her  earnest 
appeal  to  us  for  our  friendly  aid.  Neither 
should  we  fail  to  notice  the  new  and  important 
reference  of  the  Venezuelan  envoy  to  the  im- 
mense riches  being  discovered  in  the  disputed 
territory.  Gold  beneath  soil  in  controversy 
does  not  always  hasten  the  adjustment  of  un- 
certain or  disputed  boundary-lines. 

On  the  twenty-fourth  clay  of  March,  1877, 
Lord  Derby  informed  the  Venezuelan  envoy 
that  the  governor  of  British  Guiana  was  shortly 
exacted  in  London,  and  that  he  was  anxious 
to  await  his  arrival  before  taking  any  steps  in 
the  boundary  discussion. 

After  waiting  for  more  than  two  years  for  a 
further  answer  from  the  English  Government, 
the  Venezuelan  representative  in  London,  on 


26  THE  VENEZUELAN 

the  1 9th  of  May,  1879,  addressed  a  note  on  the 
subject  to  Lord  Salisbury,  who,  in  the  mean- 
time, had  succeeded  Lord  Derby.  In  this  note 
reference  was  made  to  the  communication  sent 
to  Lord  Derby  in  1877,  to  the  desire  expressed 
by  him  to  await  the  arrival  of  the  governor  of 
British  Guiana  before  making  reply,  and  to  the 
fact  that  the  communication  mentioned  still 
remained  unanswered;  and  on  behalf  of  Vene- 
zuela her  representative  repeated  the  alterna- 
tive proposition  made  by  him  in  February, 
1877,  in  these  words:  "The  boundary  treaty 
may  be  based  either  on  the  acceptance  of  the 
line  of  strict  right  as  shown  by  the  records, 
documents,  and  other  authoritative  proofs 
which  each  party  may  exhibit,  or  on  the  ac- 
ceptance at  once  by  both  Governments  of  a 
frontier  of  accommodation  which  shall  satisfy 
the  respective  interests  of  the  two  countries" ; 
and  he  concluded  his  note  as  follows: 

If  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Government  should 
prefer  the  frontier  of  accommodation  or  con- 
venience, then  it  would  be  desirable  that  it  should 
vouchsafe  to  make  a  proposition  of  an  arrange- 
ment, on  the  understanding  that,  in  order  to 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  27 

obviate  future  difficulties  and  to  give  Great 
Britain  the  fullest  proof  of  the  consideration  and 
friendship  which  Venezeula  professes  for  her, 
my  Government  would  not  hesitate  to  accept  a 
demarcation  that  should  satisfy  as  far  as  possible 
the  interests  of  the  Republic. 

At  all  events,  my  Lord,  something  will  have  to 
be  done  to  prevent  this  question  from  pending 
any  longer. 

Thirty-eight  years  ago  my  Government  wrote 
urging  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  have  the 
Boundary  Treaty  concluded,  and  now  this  affair 
is  in  the  same  position  as  in  1841,  without  any 
settlement ;  meanwhile  Guiana  has  become  of 
more  importance  than  it  was  then,  by  reason  of 
the  large  deposits  of  gold  which  have  been  and 
still  are  met  with  in  that  region. 

Now,  at  the  date  of  this  communication 
England's  most  extreme  claims  were  indicated 
either  by  the  Schomburgk  line  or  by  the  line 
which  Lord  Aberdeen  suggested  in  1844  as  a 
concession.  These  were  indeed  the  only  lines 
which  Great  Britain  had  thus  far  presented. 
When  in  such  circumstances,  and  with  these 
lines  distinctly  in  mind,  the  envoy  of  Vene- 
zuela offered  to  abandon  for  his  country  her 


28  THE  VENEZUELAN 

most  extreme  claims,  and  asked  that  Great 
Britain  should  "vouchsafe  to  make  a  proposi- 
tion of  an  arrangement"  upon  the  basis  of  a 
"frontier  of  accommodation  or  convenience," 
what  answer  had  he  a  right  to  expect?  Most 
assuredly  he  had  a  right  to  expect  that  if 
Great  Britain  should  prefer  to  proceed  upon 
the  theory  of  "accommodation  or  convenience," 
she  would  respond  by  offering  such  a  reduc- 
tion of  the  claims  she  had  already  made  as 
would  indicate  a  degree  of  concession  or 
"accommodation"  on  her  part  that  should  en- 
title her  to  expect  similar  concession  from 
Venezuela. 

What  was  the  answer  actually  made?  After 
a  delay  of  nearly  eight  months,  on  the  tenth 
day  of  January,  1880,  Lord  Salisbury  replied 
that  her  Majesty's  Government  were  of  the 
opinion  that  to  argue  the  matter  on  the  ground 
of  strict  right  would  involve  so  many  intricate 
questions  that  it  would  be  very  unlikely  to  lead 
to  a  satisfactory  solution  of  the  question,  and 
they  would  therefore  prefer  the  alternative  "of 
endeavoring  to  come  to  an  agreement  as  to  the 
acceptance  by  the  two  Governments  of  a  fron- 
tier of  accommodation  which  shall  satisfy  the 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  29 

respective  interests  of  the  two  countries."  He 
then  gives  a  most  startling  statement  of 
the  English  Government's  claim,  by  specifying 
boundaries  which  overlap  the  Schomburgk  line 
and  every  other  line  that  had  been  thought  of 
or  dreamed  of  before,  declaring  that  such 
claim  is  justified  "by  virtue  of  ancient  treaties 
with  the  aboriginal  tribes  and  of  subsequent 
cessions  from  Holland."  He  sets  against  this 
claim,  or  "on  the  other  hand,"  as  he  says,  the 
fact  that  the  President  of  Venezuela,  in  a  mes- 
sage dated  February  20,  1877,  "put  forward  a 
claim  on  the  part  of  Venezuela  to  the  river 
Essequibo  as  the  boundary  to  -which  the  Re- 
public was  entitled" — thereby  giving  prejudi- 
cial importance  to  a  claim  of  boundary  made 
by  the  President  of  Venezuela  three  years  be- 
fore, notwithstanding  his  Lordship  was  ans- 
wering a  communication  in  which  Venezuela's 
present  diplomatic  representative  distinctly 
proposed  "a  frontier  of  accommodation."  His 
declaration,  therefore,  that  the  boundary  which 
was  thus  put  forward  by  the  President  of 
Venezuela  would  involve  "the  surrender  of  a 
province  now  inhabited  by  forty  thousand 
British  subjects,"  seems  quite  irrelevant,  be- 


30  THE  VENEZUELAN 

cause  such  a  boundary  was  not  then  under 
consideration;  and  in  passing  it  may  occur  to 
us  that  the  great  delay  in  settling  the  boun- 
daries between  the  two  countries  had  given 
abundant  opportunity  for  such  inhabitation  as 
Lord  Salisbury  suggests.  His  Lordship  hav- 
ing thus  built  up  a  contention  in  which  he  puts 
on  one  side  a  line  which  for  the  sake  of  pacific 
accommodation  Venezuela  no  longer  proposes 
to  insist  upon,  and  on  the  other  a  line  for 
Great  Britain  so  grotesquely  extreme  as  to  ap- 
pear fanciful,  soberly  observes : 

The  difference,  therefore,  between  these  two 
claims  is  so  great  that  it  is  clear  that,  in  order  to 
arrive  at  a  satisfactory  arrangement,  each  party 
must  be  prepared  to  make  considerable  conces- 
sions to  the  other ;  and  although  the  claim  of  Ven- 
ezuela to  the  Essequibo  River  boundary  could 
not  under  any  circumstances  be  entertained,  I 
beg  leave  to  assure  you  that  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment are  anxious  to  meet  the  Venezuelan 
Government  in  a  spirit  of  conciliation,  and  would 
be  willing,  in  the  event  of  a  renewal  of  negotia- 
tions for  a  general  settlement  of  boundaries,  to 
waive  a  portion  of  what  they  consider  to  be  their 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  31 

strict  right,  if  Venezuela  is  really  disposed  to 
make  corresponding  concessions  on  her  part. 


And  ignoring  entirely  the  humbly  respectful 
request  of  the  Venezuelan  minister  that  Great 
Britain  would  "vouchsafe  to  make  a  proposi- 
tion of  an  arrangement,"  his  Lordship  thus 
concludes  his  communication :  "Her  Majesty's 
Government  will  therefore  be  glad  to  receive, 
and  will  undertake  to  consider  in  the  most 
friendly  spirit,  any  proposal  that  the  Venezue- 
lan Government  may  think  fit  to  make  for  the 
establishment  of  a  boundary  satisfactory  to 
both  nations." 

This  is  diplomacy — of  a  certain  sort.  It  is  a 
deep  and  mysterious  science;  and  we  probably 
cannot  do  better  than  to  confess  our  inability 
to  understand  its  intricacies  and  sinuosities ; 
but  at  this  point  we  can  hardly  keep  out  of 
mind  the  methods  of  the  shrewd,  sharp  trader 
who  demands  exorbitant  terms,  and  at  the  same 
time  invites  negotiation,  looking  for  a  result 
abundantly  profitable  in  the  large  range  for 
dicker  which  he  has  created. 

An  answer  was  made  to  Lord  Salisbury's 
note  on  the  twelfth  day  of  April,  1880,  in 


32  THE  VENEZUELAN 

which  the  Venezuelan  envoy  stated  in  direct 
terms  that  he  had  received  specific  instructions 
from  his  government  for  the  arrangement  of 
the  difficulty,  by  abandoning  the  ground  of 
strict  right  and  "concurring  in  the  adoption  for 
both  countries  of  a  frontier  mutually  conven- 
ient, and  reconciling  in  the  best  possible 
manner  their  respective  interests — each  party 
having  to  make  concessions  to  the  other  for  the 
purpose  of  attaining  such  an  important  result." 
It  will  be  remembered  that  in  1844,  when 
this  boundary  question  was  under  discussion, 
Lord  Aberdeen  proposed  a  line  beginning  in 
the  mouth  of  the  Moroco  River,  being  a  point 
on  the  coast  south  and  east  of  the  mouth  of  the 
Orinoco,  thus  giving  to  Venezuela  the  control 
of  that  river,  but  running  inland  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  to  include,  in  the  whole,  little  if  any 
less  area  than  that  included  in  the  Schomburgk 
line;  and  it  will  also  be  recalled  that  this  line 
was  not  then  acceptable  to  Venezuela.  It  ap- 
pears, however,  that  the  delays  and  incidents 
of  thirty-six  years  had  impressed  upon  the 
government  of  the  republic  the  serious  disad- 
vantages of  her  situation  in  contention  with 
Great  Britain ;  for  we  find  in  this  reply  of  the 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  33 

Venezuelan  envoy  the  inquiry  "whether  Her 
Britannic  Majesty's  Government  is  disposed 
now,  as  it  was  in  1844,  to  accept  the  mouth  of 
the  river  Moroco  as  the  frontier  at  the  coast." 
To  this  Lord  Salisbury  promptly  responded 
that  the  attorney-general  for  the  colony  of 
British  Guiana  was  shortly  expected  in  Eng- 
land, and  that  her  Majesty's  Government 
would  prefer  to  postpone  the  boundary  dis- 
cussion until  his  arrival. 

This  was  followed  by  a  silence  of  five 
months,  with  no  word  or  sign  from  England's 
Foreign  Office;  and  in  the  meantime  Earl 
Granville  had  succeeded  Lord  Salisbury  as 
Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs.  Af- 
ter waiting  thus  long,  the  representative  of 
Venezuela,  oh  the  23d  of  September,  1880,  re- 
minded Lord  Granville  that  in  the  preceding 
April  his  immediate  predecessor  had  informed 
him  that  the  arrival  of  the  attorney-general  of 
British  Guiana  was  awaited  before  deciding 
the  question  of  boundaries  between  the  two 
Guianas;  and  as  he  had  not,  after  the  lapse  of 
five  months,  been  honored  with  a  communica- 
tion on  the  subject,  he  was  bound  to  suppose 
that  the  attorney-general  had  not  accomplished 


34  THE  VENEZUELAN 

his  voyage,  in  which  case  it  was  useless  longer 
to  wait  for  him.  He  further  reminded  his 
Lordship  that  on  the  24th  of  March,  1877, 
Lord  Derby,  then  in  charge  of  British  foreign 
affairs,  also  desired  to  postpone  the  consider- 
ation of  the  question  until  the  arrival  in  Lon- 
don of  the  governor  of  British  Guiana,  who 
was  then  expected,  but  who  apparently  never 
came.  He  then  proceeds  as  follows : 

Consequently  it  is  best  not  to  go  on  waiting 
either  for  the  Governor  or  for  the  Attorney- 
General  of  the  Colony,  but  to  decide  these  ques- 
tions ourselves,  considering  that  my  Government 
is  now  engaged  in  preparing  the  official  map  of 
the  Republic  and  wishes  of  course  to  mark  out 
the  boundaries  on  the  East. 

In  my  despatch  of  the  I2th  of  April  last,  I  in- 
formed your  Excellency  [Excellency's  predeces- 
sor ?]  that  as  a  basis  of  a  friendly  demarcation  my 
Government  was  disposed  to  accept  the  mouth  of 
the  River  Moroco  as  the  frontier  on  the  coast. 
If  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Government  should 
accept  this  point  of  departure,  it  would  be  very 
easy  to  determine  the  general  course  of  the  fron- 
tier, either  by  means  of  notes  or  in  verbal  con- 
ferences, as  your  Excellency  might  prefer. 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  35 

On  the  twelfth  day  of  February,  1881,  Lord 
Granville,  replying  to  Venezuela's  two  notes 
dated  April  12  and  September  23,  1880,  in- 
formed her  representative,  without  explanation, 
that  her  Majesty's  Government  would  not  ac- 
cept the  mouth  of  the  Moroco  as  the  divisional 
boundary  on  the  coast. 

A  few  days  afterward,  in  an  answer  to  this 
refusal,  Venezuela's  representative  mentioned 
the  extreme  claims  of  the  two  countries  and 
the  fact  that  it  had  been  agreed  between  the 
parties  that  steps  should  be  taken  to  settle  upon 
a  frontier  of  accommodation ;  that  in  pursuance 
thereof  he  had  proposed  as  the  point  of  depar- 
ture for  such  a  frontier  the  mouth  of  the 
Moroco  River,  which  was  in  agreement  thus 
far  with  the  proposition  made  by  Lord  Aber- 
deen on  behalf  of  Great  Britain  in  1844;  and 
|>ertinently  added:  "Thus  thirty-seven  years 
ago  Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Government 
spontaneously  proposed  the  mouth  of  the  Mo- 
roco River  as  the  limit  on  the  coast,  a  limit 
which  your  Excellency  does  not  accept  now, 
for  you  are  pleased  to  tell  me  so  in  the  note 
which  I  have  the  honor  of  answering."  He 
thereupon  suggests  another  boundary,  begin- 


36  THE  VENEZUELAN 

ning  on  the  coast  at  a  point  one  mile  north  of 
the  mouth  of  the  Moroco  River  and  thence  ex- 
tending inland  in  such  manner  as  to  constitute 
a  large  concession  on  the  part  of  Venezuela, 
but  falling  very  far  short  of  meeting  the 
claims  of  Great  Britain.  He  declares,  how- 
ever, that  this  demarcation  "is  the  maximum 
of  all  concessions  which  in  this  matter  the 
Government  of  Venezuela  can  grant  by  way 
of  friendly  arrangement." 

Apparently  anticipating,  as  he  well  might, 
that  the  boundary  he  proposed  would  fail  of 
acceptance,  he  suggests  that  in  such  case  the 
two  governments  would  have  no  alternative  but 
to  determine  the  frontier  by  strict  right,  and 
that  on  this  basis  they  would  find  it  impossible 
to  arrive  at  an  agreement.  Therefore  he  de- 
clares that  he  has  received  instructions  from 
his  government  to  urge  upon  Great  Britain  the 
submission  of  the  question  to  an  arbitrator,  to 
be  chosen  by  both  parties,  to  whose  award  both 
governments  should  submit. 

In  this  proposal  of  arbitration  by  Venezuela 
we  find  an  approach  to  a  new  phase  of  the 
controversy.  At  first,  the  two  countries  had 
stood  at  arm's-length,  each  asserting  strict 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  37 

right  of  boundary,  only  to  be  met  by  obstinate 
and  unyielding  resistance.  Next,  the  field  of 
mutual  concession  and  accommodation  had 
been  traversed,  with  no  result  except  dama- 
ging and  dangerous  delay.  And  now,  after 
forty  years  of  delusive  hope,  the  time  seemed 
at  hand  when  the  feebler  contestant  must  con- 
template ignominious  submission  to  dictatorial 
exaction,  or  forcible  resistance,  futile  and  dis- 
tressing, unless  honorable  rest  and  justice 
could  be  found  in  arbitration — the  refuge 
which  civilization  has  builded  among  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth  for  the  protection  of  the 
weak  against  the  strong,  and  the  citadel 
from  which  the  ministries  of  peace  issue 
their  decrees  against  the  havoc  and  barbarism 
of  war. 

The  reply  of  Lord  Granville  to  the  com- 
munication of  the  envoy  of  Venezuela  pro- 
posing an  alternative  of  arbitration  was  delayed 
for  seven  months;  and  when,  in  September, 
1 88 1,  it  was  received,  it  contained  a  rejection 
of  the  boundary  offered  by  Venezuela  and  a 
proposal  of  a  new  line  apparently  lacking  al- 
most every  feature  of  concession ;  and,  singu- 
larly enough,  there  was  not  in  this  reply  the 


38  THE  VENEZUELAN 

slightest  allusion  to  Venezuela's  request  for 
arbitration. 

I  do  not  find  that  this  communication  of 
Great  Britain  was  ever  specifically  answered, 
though  an  answer  was  often  requested.  No 
further  steps  appear  to  have  been  taken  until 
September  7,  1883,  when  Lord  Granville  in- 
structed the  British  minister  to  Venezuela  to 
invite  the  serious  attention  of  the  Venezuelan 
Government  to  the  questions  pending  between 
the  two  countries,  with  a  view  to  their  early 
settlement.  These  questions  are  specified  as 
relating  to  the  boundary,  to  certain  differential 
duties  imposed  on  imports  from  British  colo- 
nies, and  to  the  claims  of  British  creditors  of 
the  republic.  His  Lordship  declared  in  those 
instructions  that  as  a  preliminary  to  entering 
upon  negotiations  it  was  indispensable  that  an 
answer  should  be  given  to  the  pending  pro- 
posal which  had  been  made  by  her  Majesty's 
Government  in  regard  to  the  boundary. 

The  representations  made  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  Venezuela  by  the  British  minister,  in 
obedience  to  those  instructions,  elicited  a  reply, 
in  which  a  provision  of  the  Venezuelan  consti- 
tution was  cited  prohibiting  the  alienation  or 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY 


39 


cession  of  any  part  of  the  territory  of  the  re- 
public ;  and  it  was  suggested  that,  inasmuch  as 
the  Essequibo  line  seemed  abundantly  sup- 
ported as  the  true  boundary  of  Venezuela,  a 
concession  beyond  that  line  by  treaty  would 
be  obnoxious  to  this  constitutional  prohibition, 
whereas  any  reduction  of  territory  brought 
about  by  a  decree  of  an  arbitral  tribunal 
would  obviate  the  difficulty.  Therefore  the 
urgent  necessity  was  submitted  for  the  selec- 
tion of  an  arbitrator,  "who,  freely  and  unani- 
mously chosen  by  the  two  Governments,  would 
judge  and  pronounce  a  sentence  of  a  definitive 
character." 

The  representative  of  her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment, in  a  response  dated  February  29,  1884, 
commented  upon  the  new  difficulty  introduced 
by  the  statement  concerning  the  prohibition 
contained  in  the  constitution  of  the  republic, 
and  expressed  a  fear  that  if  arbitration  was 
agreed  to,  the  same  prohibition  might  be  in- 
voked as  an  excuse  for  not  abiding  by  an 
award  unfavorable  to  Venezuela;  and  it  was 
declared  that  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  arbi- 
trator should  decide  in  favor  of  the  Venezuelan 
Government  to  the  full  extent  of  their  claim. 


40  THE  VENEZUELAN 

"a  large  and  important  territory  which  has 
for  a  long  period  been  inhabited  and  occupied 
by  Her  Majesty's  subjects  and  treated  as  a 
part  of  the  Colony  of  British  Guiana  would  be 
severed  from  the  Queen's  dominions."  This 
declaration  is  immediately  followed  by  a  con- 
clusion in  these  words: 

For  the  above-mentioned  reasons,  therefore, 
the  circumstances  of  the  case  do  not  appear  to 
Her  Majesty's  Government  to  be  such  as  to 
render  arbitration  applicable  for  a  solution  of 
the  difficulty;  and  I  have  accordingly  to  request 
you,  in  making  this  known  to  the  Venezuelan 
Government,  to  express  to  them  the  hope  of  Her 
Majesty's  Government  that  some  other  means 
may  be  devised  for  bringing  this  long-standing 
matter  to  an  issue  satisfactory  to  both  powers. 

Let  us  pause  here  for  a  moment's  examina- 
tion of  the  surprising  refusal  of  Great  Britain 
to  submit  this  difficulty  to  arbitration,  and  the 
more  surprising  reasons  presented  for  its  justi- 
fication. The  refusal  was  surprising  because 
the  controversy  had  reached  such  a  stage  that 
arbitration  was  evidently  the  only  means  by 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  41 

which  it  could  be  settled  consistently  with  har- 
monious relations  between  the  two  countries. 

It  was  on  this  ground  that  Venezuela  pro- 
posed arbitration;  and  she  strongly  urged  it 
on  the  further  ground  that  inasmuch  as  the 
prohibition  of  her  constitution  prevented  the 
relinquishment,  by  treaty  or  voluntary  act,  of 
any  part  of  the  territory  which  her  people  and 
their  government  claimed  to  be  indubitably 
Venezuelan,  such  a  relinquishment  would  pre- 
sent no  difficulties  if  it  was  in  obedience  to  a 
decree  of  a  tribunal  to  which  the  question  of 
ownership  had  been  mutually  submitted. 

In  giving  her  reasons  for  rejecting  arbitra- 
tion Great  Britain  says  in  effect:  The  plan 
you  urge  for  the  utter  and  complete  elimina- 
tion of  this  constitutional  prohibition — for  its 
expurgation  and  destruction  so  far  as  it  is  re- 
lated to  the  pending  dispute — is  objectionable, 
because  we  fear  the  prohibition  thus  eliminated, 
expunged,  and  destroyed  will  still  be  used  as  a 
pretext  for  disobedience  to  an  award  which, 
for  the  express  purpose  of  avoiding  this  con- 
stitutional restraint,  you  have  invited. 

The  remaining  objection  interposed  by 
Great  Britain  to  the  arbitration  requested  by 


42  THE  VENEZUELAN 

Venezuela  is  based  upon  the  fear  that  an 
award  might  be  made  in  favor  of  the  Vene- 
zuelan claim,  in  which  case  "a  large  and  im- 
portant territory  which  has  for  a  long  period 
been  inhabited  and  occupied  by  Her  Majesty's 
subjects  and  treated  as  a  part  of  the  Colony 
of  British  Guiana  would  be  severed  from  the 
Queen's  dominions." 

It  first  occurs  to  us  that  a  contention  may 
well  be  suspected  of  weakness  when  its  sup- 
porters are  unwilling  to  subject  it  to  the  test 
of  impartial  arbitration.  Certain  inquiries  are 
also  pertinent  in  this  connection.  Who  were 
the  British  subjects  who  had  long  occupied 
the  territory  that  might  through  arbitration 
be  severed  from  the  Queen's  dominions  ?  How 
many  of  them  began  this  occupancy  during 
the  more  than  forty  years  that  the  territory 
had  been  steadily  and  notoriously  disputed? 
Did  they  enter  upon  this  territory  with  knowl- 
edge of  the  dispute  and  against  the  warning 
of  the  government  to  which  they  owed  allegi- 
ance, or  were  they  encouraged  and  invited  to 
such  entry  by  agencies  of  that  government 
who  had  full  notice  of  the  uncertainty  of  the 
British  title?  In  one  case,  being  themselves  in 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  43 

the  wrong,  they  were  entitled  to  no  consider- 
ation ;  in  the  other,  the  question  of  loss  and  in- 
demnification should  rest  between  them  and 
their  government,  which  had  impliedly  guar- 
anteed them  against  disturbance.  In  any 
event,  neither  case  presented  a  reason  why 
Great  Britain  should  take  or  possess  the  lands 
of  Venezuela;  nor  did  either  case  furnish  an 
excuse  for  denying  to  Venezuela  a  fair  and 
impartial  adjudication  of  her  disputed  rights. 
By  whom  had  this  territory  "been  treated  as 
a  part  of  the  Colony  of  British  Guiana"? 
Surely  not  by  Venezuela.  On  the  contrary, 
she  had  persistently  claimed  it  as  her  own,  and 
had  "treated"  it  as  her  own  as  far  as  she  could 
and  dared.  England  alone  had  treated  it  as  a 
part  of  British  Guiana;  her  immense  power 
had  enabled  her  to  do  this ;  and  her  decrees  in 
her  own  favor  as  against  her  weak  adversary 
undoubtedly  promised  greater  advantages  than 
arbitration  could  possibly  assure. 


Ill 

The  Secretary  of  State  of  Venezuela,  soon 
after  this  refusal  of  Great  Britain  to  submit 
the  boundary  dispute  to  arbitration,  in  a  de- 
spatch dated  the  second  day  of  April,  1884, 
still  urged  that  method  of  settlement,  citing 
precedents  and  presenting  arguments  in  its 
favor;  and  in  conclusion  he  asked  the  minister 
of  the  English  Government  at  Caracas  "to 
have  the  goodness  to  think  out  and  suggest  any 
acceptable  course  for  attaining  a  solution  of 
the  difficulty."  This  was  followed,  a  few  days 
afterward,  by  another  communication  from  the 
Venezuelan  Secretary  of  State,  repeating  his 
urgent  request  for  arbitration.  From  this 
communication  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  make 
the  following  quotation: 

Venezuela  and  Great  Britain  possess  the  same 
rights  in  the  question  under  discussion.  If  the 
Republic  should  yield  up  any  part  of  her  pre- 
tensions, she  would  recognize  the  superior  right 
of  Great  Britain,  would  violate  the  above-quoted 
44 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  45 

article  of  the  Constitution,  and  draw  down  the 
censure  of  her  fellow-citizens.  But  when  both 
nations,  putting  aside  their  independence  of 
action  in  deference  to  peace  and  good  friendship, 
create  by  mutual  consent  a  Tribunal  which  may 
decide  in  the  controversy,  the  same  is  able  to  pass 
sentence  that  one  of  the  two  parties  or  both  of 
them  have  been  mistaken  in  their  opinions  con- 
cerning the  extent  of  their  territory.  Thus  the 
case  would  not  be  in  opposition  to  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  Republic,  there  being  no  alienation  of 
that  which  shall  have  been  determined  not  to  be 
her  property. 

On  the  tenth  day  of  June,  1884,  arbitration 
was  again  refused  in  a  curt  note  from  Lord 
Granville,  declaring  that  "Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment adhere  to  their  objection  to  arbitra- 
tion as  a  mode  of  dealing  with  this  question." 

About  this  time  complaints  and  protests  of 
the  most  vigorous  character,  based  upon  al- 
leged breaches  of  the  agreement  of  1850  con- 
cerning the  non-occupation  of  the  disputed 
territory  broke  out  on  both  sides  of  the  con- 
troversy, and  accusations  of  aggression  and 
occupation  were  constantly  made.  I  shall  not 
attempt  to  follow  them,  as  in  detail  they  are 


46  THE  VENEZUELAN 

not  among  the  incidents  which  I  consider  es- 
pecially relevant  to  the  presentation  of  my 
theme. 

On  the  thirteenth  day  of  December,  1884, 
Venezuela,  in  reply  to  a  proposition  of  the 
British  Government  that  the  boundary  question 
and  certain  other  differences  should  be  settled 
simultaneously,  suggested,  in  view  of  the  un- 
willingness of  Great  Britain  to  submit  the 
boundary  dispute  to  arbitration,  that  it  should 
be  presented  for  decision  to  a  court  of  law, 
the  members  of  which  should  be  chosen  by  the 
parties  respectively. 

The  British  Government  promptly  declined 
this  proposition,  and  stated  that  they  were 
not  prepared  to  depart  from  the  arrangement 
made  in  1877  to  decide  the  question  by  adopt- 
ing a  conventional  boundary  fixed  by  mutual 
accord  between  the  two  governments.  This 
was  in  the  face  of  the  efforts  which  had  been 
made  along  that  line  and  found  utterly 
fruitless. 

Immediately  following  the  last-mentioned 
proposition  by  Venezuela  for  the  presentation 
of  the  difficulty  to  a  court  of  law  mutually 
chosen,  negotiations  were  entered  upon  for  the 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  47 

conclusion  of  a  treaty  between  Great  Britain 
and  Venezuela,  which  should  quiet  a  difference 
pending  between  the  two  countries  relating  to 
differential  duties  and  which  should  also  dis- 
pose of  other  unsettled  questions.  In  a  draft 
of  such  a  treaty  submitted  by  Venezuela  there 
was  inserted  an  article  providing  for  arbitra- 
tion in  case  of  all  differences  which  could  not 
be  adjusted  by  friendly  negotiation.  To  this 
article  Great  Britain  suggested  an  amendment, 
making  such  arbitration  applicable  only  to  mat- 
ters arising  out  of  the  interpretation  or  exe- 
cution of  the  treaty  itself,  and  especially 
excluding  those  emanating  from  any  other 
source ;  but  on  further  representation  by  Vene- 
zuela, Lord  Granville,  in  behalf  of  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Great  Britain,  expressly  agreed 
with  Venezuela  that  the  treaty  article  relating 
to  arbitration  should  be  unrestricted  in  its 
operation.  This  diplomatic  agreement  was  in 
explicit  terms,  her  Majesty's  Government 
agreeing  "that  the  undertaking  to  refer  differ- 
ences to  arbitration  shall  include  all  differences 
which  may  arise  between  the  High  Contract- 
ing Parties,  and  not  those  only  which  arise  on 
the  interpretation  of  the  Treaty." 


48  THE  VENEZUELAN 

This  occurred  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  May, 
1885.  Whatever  Lord  Granville  may  have  in- 
tended by  the  language  used,  the  Government 
of  Venezuela  certainly  understood  his  agree- 
ment to  include  the  pending  boundary  dispute 
as  among  the  questions  that  should  be  sub- 
mitted to  arbitration;  and  all  other  matters 
which  the  treaty  should  embrace  seemed  so 
easy  of  adjustment  that  its  early  comple- 
tion, embodying  a  stipulation  for  the  final 
arbitration  of  the  boundary  controversy,  was 
confidently  and  gladly  anticipated  by  the  re- 
public. 

The  high  hopes  and  joyful  anticipations  of 
Venezuela  born  of  this  apparently  favorable 
situation  were,  however,  but  short-lived. 

On  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  July,  1885, 
Lord  Salisbury,  who  in  the  meantime  had  suc- 
ceeded the  Earl  of  Granville  in  Great  Britain's 
Foreign  Office,  in  a  note  to  Venezuela's  envoy, 
declared :  "Her  Majesty's  Government  are 
unable  to  concur  in  the  assent  given  by  their 
predecessors  in  office  to  the  general  arbitration 
article  proposed  by  Venezuela,  and  they  are 
unable  to  agree  to  the  inclusion  in  it  of  mat- 
ters other  than  those  arising  out  of  the  inter- 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  49 

pretation  or  alleged  violation  of  this  particular 
treaty." 

No  assertion  of  the  irrevocability  of  the 
agreement  which  Venezuela  had  made  with  his 
predecessor,  and  no  plea  or  argument  of  any 
kind,  availed  to  save  the  enlarged  terms  of 
this  arbitration  clause  from  Lord  Salisbury's 
destructive  insistence. 

On  the  twentieth  day  of  June,  1886,  Lord 
Rosebery  suggested  for  Great  Britain,  and  as 
a  solution  of  the  difficulty,  that  the  territory 
within  two  certain  lines  which  had  been  al- 
ready proposed  as  boundaries  should  be  equally 
divided  between  the  contestants,  either  by  arbi- 
tration or  the  determination  of  a  mixed 
commission. 

This  was  declined  by  Venezuela  on  the 
twenty-ninth  day  of  July,  1886,  upon  the  same 
grounds  that  led  to  the  declination  of  prior 
proposals  that  apparently  involved  an  absolute 
cession  of  a  part  of  her  territory ;  and  she  still 
insisted  upon  an  arbitration  embracing  the  en- 
tire disputed  territory  as  the  only  feasible 
method  of  adjustment. 

This  declination  on  the  part  of  Venezuela 
of  Lord  Rosebery 's  proposition  terminated  the 


50  THE  VENEZUELAN 

second  attempt  in  point  of  time,  to  settle  this 
vexed  question.  In  the  meantime  the  aggres- 
sive conduct  which  for  some  time  the  officials 
of  both  countries  had  exhibited  in  and  near  the 
contested  region  had  grown  in  distinctness  and 
significance,  until  Great  Britain  had  openly  and 
with  notorious  assertion  of  ownership  taken 
possession  of  a  valuable  part  of  the  territory 
in  dispute.  On  the  26th  of  October,  1886,  an 
official  document  was  published  in  the  London 
"Gazette"  giving  notice  that  no  grants  of  land 
made  by  the  Government  of  Venezuela  in  the 
territory  claimed  by  Great  Britain  would  be 
admitted  or  recognized  by  her  Majesty;  and 
this  more  significant  statement  was  added :  "A 
map  showing  the  boundary  between  British 
Guiana  and  Venezuela  claimed  by  Her  Maj- 
esty's Government  can  be  seen  in  the  library 
of  the  Colonial  Office,  Downing  Street,  or  at 
the  Office  of  the  Government  Secretary, 
Georgetown,  British  Guiana."  The  boundary 
here  spoken  of,  as  shown  on  the  map  to  which 
attention  is  directed,  follows  the  Schomburgk 
line.  Protests  and  demands  in  abundance  on 
the  part  of  Venezuela  followed,  which  were  ut- 
terly disregarded,  until,  on  the  thirty-first  day 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  51 

of  January,  1887,  the  Venezuelan  Secretary  of 
State  distinctly  demanded  of  Great  Britain  the 
evacuation  of  the  disputed  territory  which  she 
was  occupying  in  violation  of  prior  agreement 
and  the  rights  of  the  republic,  and  gave  formal 
notice  that  unless  such  evacuation  should  be 
completed,  and  accompanied  by  acceptance  of 
arbitration  as  a  means  of  deciding  the  pending 
frontier  dispute,  by  the  twentieth  day  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1887,  diplomatic  relations  between  the 
two  countries  would  on  that  day  cease. 

These  demands  were  absolutely  unheeded; 
and  thereupon,  when  the  twentieth  day  of  Feb- 
ruary arrived,  Venezuela  exhibited  a  long  list 
of  specific  charges  of  aggression  and  wrong- 
doing against  Great  Britain,  and  made  the  fol- 
lowing statement  and  final  protest : 

In  consequence,  Venezuela,  not  deeming  it 
fitting  to  continue  friendly  relations  with  a  state 
which  thus  injures  her,  suspends  them  from 
to-day. 

And  she  protests  before  the  Government  of 
Her  Britannic  Majesty,  before  all  civilized 
nations,  before  the  whole  world,  against  the  acts 
of  spoliation  which  the  Government  of  Great 


52  THE  VENEZUELAN 

Britain  has  committed  to  her  detriment,  and 
which  she  will  never  on  any  consideration  recog- 
nize as  capable  of  altering  in  the  slightest  degree 
the  rights  which  she  has  acquired  from  Spain, 
and  respecting  which  she  will  be  always  ready  to 
submit  to  a  third  power,  as  the  only  way  to 
a  solution  compatible  with  her  constitutional 
principles. 


Notwithstanding  all  this,  three  years  after- 
ward, and  on  the  tenth  day  of  January,  1890, 
an  agent  of  Venezuela,  appointed  for  that  pur- 
pose, addressed  a  note  to  Lord  Salisbury,  still 
in  charge  of  Great  Britain's  foreign  relations, 
expressing  the  desire  of  Venezuela  to  renew 
diplomatic  relations  with  Great  Britain,  and 
requesting  an  interview  to  that  end. 

A  short  time  thereafter  the  Government  of 
Great  Britain  expressed  its  satisfaction  that  a 
renewal  of  diplomatic  relations  was  in  pros- 
pect, and  presented  to  the  representative  of 
Venezuela  "a  statement  of  the  conditions 
which  Her  Majesty's  Government  considered 
necessary  for  a  satisfactory  settlement  of  the 
questions  pending  between  the  two  countries." 

As  the  first  of  these  conditions  it  was  de- 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  53 

clared  that  "Her  Majesty's  Government  could 
not  accept  as  satisfactory  any  arrangement 
which  did  not  admit  the  British  title  to  the 
territory  comprised  within  the  line  laid  down 
by  Sir  R.  Schomburgk  in  1841 ;  but  they 
would  be  willing  to  refer  to  arbitration  the 
claims  of  Great  Britain  to  certain  territory  to 
the  west  of  that  line." 

Naturally  enough,  this  statement  was  re- 
ceived by  Venezuela  with  great  disappointment 
and  surprise.  Her  representative  promptly  re- 
plied that  his  government  could  not  accept  any 
single  point  of  the  arbitrary  and  capricious 
line  laid  down  by  Sir  R.  Schomburgk  in  1841, 
which  had  been  declared  null  and  void  even  by 
the  Government  of  her  Majesty ;  and  that  it 
was  not  possible  for  Venezuela  to  accept  arbi- 
tration in  respect  to  territory  west  of  that  line. 
He  further  expressed  his  regret  that  the  con- 
ditions then  demanded  by  Lord  Salisbury  were 
more  unfavorable  to  Venezuela  than  the  pro- 
posals made  to  the  former  agent  of  the  re- 
public prior  to  the  suspension  of  diplomatic 
relations. 

On  the  i Qth  of  March,  1890,  the  British 
Government  reiterated  its  position  more  in  de- 


54  THE  VENEZUELAN 

tail.  Its  refusal  to  admit  any  question  as  to 
Great  Britain's  title  to  any  of  the  territory 
within  the  Schomburgk  line  was  emphatically 
repeated,  and  the  British  claim  was  defined  to 
extend  beyond  any  pretension  which  I  believe 
had  ever  been  previously  made  except  by  Lord 
Salisbury  himself  in  1880.  A  map  was  pre- 
sented indicating  this  extreme  claim,  the 
Schomburgk  line,  and  a  certain  part  of  the 
territory  between  the  boundary  of  this  ex- 
treme claim  on  the  west  and  the  Schomburgk 
line,  which  Great  Britain  proposed  to  submit 
to  arbitration,  abandoning  all  claim  to  the  re- 
mainder of  the  territory  between  these  last- 
named  two  lines.  This  scheme,  if  adopted, 
would  give  to  England  absolutely  and  with- 
out question  the  large  territory  between  Brit- 
ish Guiana's  conceded  western  boundary  and 
the  Schomburgk  line,  with  an  opportunity  to 
lay  claim  before  a  board  of  arbitration  for 
extensive  additional  territory  beyond  the 
Schomburgk  line. 

This  is  pitiful.  The  Schomburgk  line, 
which  was  declared  by  the  British  Government, 
at  the  time  it  was  made,  to  be  "merely  a  pre- 
liminary measure,  open  to  further  discussion 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  55 

between  the  Governments  of  Great  Britain  and 
Venezuela,"  and  which  had  been  since  largely 
extended  in  some  mysterious  way,  is  now  de- 
clared to  be  a  line  so  well  established,  so  in- 
fallible, and  so  sacred  that  only  the  territory 
that  England  exorbitantly  claims  beyond  that 
line  is  enough  in  dispute  to  be  submitted  to  im- 
partial arbitration.  The  trader  is  again  in  evi- 
dence. On  this  basis  England  could  abundantly 
afford  to  lose  entirely  in  the  arbitration  she  at 
length  conceded. 

And  yet  Venezuela  was  not  absolutely  dis- 
couraged. Soon  after  the  receipt  of  Great 
Britain's  last  depressing  communication,  she 
appointed  still  another  agent  who  was  to  try 
his  hand  with  England  in  the  field  of  diplo- 
macy. On  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  June, 
1890,  this  new  representative  replied  to  the 
above  proposal  made  to  his  predecessor  by  her 
Majesty's  Government,  and  expressed  the 
great  regret  of  Venezuela  that  its  recent  pro- 
posals for  a  settlement  of  the  boundary  diffi- 
culty by  arbitration  affecting  all  the  disputed 
territory  had  been  peremptorily  declined.  He 
also  declared  that  the  emphatic  statement  con- 
tained in  Great  Britain's  last  communication  in 


56  THE  VENEZUELAN 

leference  to  this  question  created  for  his 
government  "difficulties  not  formerly  contem- 
plated," and  thereupon  formally  declined  on 
behalf  of  Venezuela  the  consideration  of  the 
proposals  contained  in  said  communication. 
This  statement  of  discouraging  conditions  was, 
however,  supplemented  by  a  somewhat  new 
suggestion  to  the  effect  that  a  preliminary 
agreement  should  be  made  containing  a  dec- 
laration on  the  part  of  the  Government  of 
Venezuela  that  the  river  Essequibo,  its  banks, 
and  the  lands  covering  it  belong  exclusively  to 
British  Guiana,  and  a  declaration  on  the  part 
of  her  Majesty's  Government  that  the  Orinoco 
River,  its  banks,  and  the  lands  covering  it  be- 
long exclusively  to  Venezuela,  and  providing 
that  a  mixed  commission  of  two  chief  engi- 
neers and  their  staffs  should  be  appointed  to 
make,  within  one  year,  careful  maps  and  charts 
of  the  region  to  the  west  and  northwest  of  the 
Essequibo  River,  toward  the  Orinoco,  in  order 
to  determine  officially  the  exact  course  of  its 
rivers  and  streams,  and  the  precise  position  of 
its  mountains  and  hills,  and  all  other  details 
that  would  permit  both  countries  to  have  re- 
liable official  knowledge  of  the  territory  which 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY 


57 


was  actually  in  dispute,  enabling  them  to  de- 
termine with  a  mutual  feeling  of  friendship 
and  good  will  a  boundary  with  perfect  knowl- 
edge of  the  case;  but  in  the  event  that  a  de- 
termination should  not  be  thus  reached,  the 
final  decision  of  the  boundary  question  should 
be  submitted  to  two  arbitrators,  one  selected  by 
each  government,  and  a  third  chosen  by  the 
other  two,  to  act  as  umpire  in  case  of  disagree- 
ment, who,  in  view  of  the  original  titles  and 
documents  presented,  should  fix  a  boundary- 
line  which,  being  in  accordance  with  the 
respective  rights  and  titles,  should  have  the 
advantage  as  far  as  possible  of  constituting  a 
natural  boundary;  and  that,  pending  such  de- 
termination, both  governments  should  remove 
or  withdraw  all  posts  and  other  indications 
and  signs  of  possession  or  dominion  on  said 
territory,  and  refrain  from  exercising  any 
jurisdiction  within  the  disputed  region. 

On  the  24th  of  July,  1890,  Lord  Salisbury 
declined  to  accept  these  suggestions  of  the 
Venezuelan  representative,  and  declared : 
"Her  Majesty's  Government  have  more  than 
once  explained  that  they  cannot  consent  to  sub- 
mit to  arbitration  what  they  regard  as  their 


58  THE  VENEZUELAN 

indisputable  title  to  districts  in  the  possession 
of  the  British  Colony." 

Is  it  uncharitable  to  see  in  this  reference  to 
"possession"  a  hint  of  the  industrious  man- 
ner in  which  Great  Britain  had  attempted  to 
improve  her  position  by  permitting  coloniza- 
tion, and  by  other  acts  of  possession,  during 
the  half -century  since  the  boundary  dispute 
began  ? 

Efforts  to  settle  this  controversy  seem  to 
have  languished  after  this  rebuff  until  March, 
1893,  when  still  another  agent  was  appointed 
by  Venezuela  for  the  purpose  of  reestablishing 
diplomatic  relations  with  Great  Britain,  and 
settling,  if  possible,  the  boundary  trouble  and 
such  other  differences  as  might  be  pending  be- 
tween the  two  countries.  As  a  means  to  that 
end,  this  agent,  on  the  twenty-sixth  day  of 
May,  1893,  presented  a  memorandum  to  the 
British  Government  containing  suggestions  for 
such  settlement.  The  suggestion  relating  to 
the  adjustment  of  the  boundary  question  rested 
upon  the  idea  of  arbitration  and  did  not  ma- 
terially differ  from  that  made  by  this  agent's 
immediate  predecessor  in  1890,  except  as  to 
the  status  quo,  pending  final  adjustment,  which 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY 


59 


it  was  proposed  should  be  the  same  as  that  ex- 
isting after  the  agreement  of  non-interference 
in  the  disputed  territory  made  by  the  two  gov- 
ernments in  1850. 

The  plan  thus  suggested  was  declined  by  the 
Government  of  Great  Britain,  because,  in  the 
first  place,  it  involved  an  arbitration,  "which 
had  been  repeatedly  declined  by  Her  Majesty's 
Government,"  and,  further,  because  it  was,  in 
the  language  of  the  British  reply,  "quite  im- 
possible that  they  should  consent  to  revert  to 
the  status  quo  of  1850  and  evacuate  what  has 
for  some  years  constituted  an  integral  portion 
of  British  Guiana." 

A  further  communication  from  the  agent  of 
Venezuela,  offering  additional  arguments  in 
support  of  his  suggestions,  brought  forth  a  re- 
ply informing  him  that  the  contents  of  his 
note  did  not  "appear  to  Her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment to  afford  any  opening  for  arriving  at 
an  understanding  on  this  question  which  they 
could  accept." 

Six  months  afterward,  on  the  twenty-ninth 
day  of  September,  1893,  a  final  communication 
was  addressed  by  the  representative  of  Vene- 
zuela to  the  British  Government,  reviewing  the 


6o  THE  VENEZUELAN 

situation  and  the  course  of  past  efforts  to  ar- 
rive at  a  settlement,  and  concluding  with  the 
words : 

I  must  now  declare  in  the  most  solemn  manner, 
and  in  the  name  of  the  Government  of  Venezuela, 
that  it  is  with  the  greatest  regret  that  that  Gov- 
ernment sees  itself  forced  to  leave  the  situation 
produced  in  the  disputed  territory  by  the  acts  of 
recent  years  unsettled,  and  subject  to  the  serious 
disturbances  which  acts  of  force  cannot  but  pro- 
duce; and  to  declare  that  Venezuela  will  never 
consent  to  proceedings  of  that  nature  being 
accepted  as  title-deeds  to  justify  the  arbitrary 
occupation  of  territory  which  is  within  its  juris- 
diction. 

Here  closed  a  period  in  this  dispute,  fifty- 
two  years  in  duration,  vexed  with  agitation, 
and  perturbed  by  irritating  and  repeated  fail- 
ures to  reach  a  peaceful  adjustment.  Instead 
of  progress  in  the  direction  of  a  settlement  of 
their  boundaries,  the  results  of  their  action 
were  increased  obstacles  to  fair  discussion,  in- 
tensified feelings  of  injury,  extended  assertion 
of  title,  ruthless  appropriation  of  the  territory 
in  controversy,  and  an  unhealed  breach  in  dip- 
lomatic relations. 


IV 

I  have  thus  far  dealt  with  this  dispute  as 
one  in  which  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela, 
the  parties  primarily  concerned,  were  sole  par- 
ticipants. We  have  now,  however,  reached  a 
stage  in  the  affair  which  requires  a  recital  of 
other  facts  which  led  up  to  the  active  and  posi- 
tive interference  of  our  own  Government  in 
the  controversy.  In  discussing  this  branch  of 
our  topic  it  will  be  necessary  not  only  to  deal 
with  circumstances  following  those  already 
narrated,  but  to  retrace  our  steps  sufficiently  to 
exhibit  among  other  things  the  appeals  and 
representations  made  to  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  by  Venezuela,  while  she  was  still 
attempting  to  arrive  at  an  adjustment  with 
Great  Britain. 

I  have  already  referred  to  the  first  communi- 
cation made  to  us  by  Venezuela  on  the  sub- 
ject. This,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  in  1876, 
when  she  sought  to  resume  negotiations  with 
Great  Britain,  after  an  interruption  of  thirty- 
two  years.  I  have  also  called  attention  to  the 
61 


62  THE  VENEZUELAN 

fact  that  coincident  with  this  communication 
Venezuela  presented  to  Great  Britain  a  willing- 
ness to  relax  her  insistence  upon  her  extreme 
boundary  claim,  based  upon  alleged  right,  and 
suggested  that  a  conventional  line  might  be 
fixed  by  mutual  concession. 

Venezuela's  first  appeal  to  us  for  support 
and  aid  amounted  to  little  more  than  a  vague 
and  indefinite  request  for  countenance  and 
sympathy  in  her  efforts  to  settle  her  differ- 
ences with  her  contestant,  with  an  expression 
of  a  desire  that  we  would  take  cognizance  of 
her  new  steps  in  that  direction.  I  do  not  find 
that  any  reply  was  made  to  this  communication. 

Five  years  afterward,  in  1881,  the  Vene- 
zuelan minister  in  Washington  presented  to 
Mr.  Evarts,  then  our  Secretary  of  State,  in- 
formation he  had  received  that  British  vessels 
had  made  their  appearance  in  the  mouth  of  the 
Orinoco  River  with  materials  to  build  a  tele- 
graph-line, and  had  begun  to  erect  poles  for 
that  purpose  at  Barima :  and  he  referred  to  the 
immense  importance  to  his  country  of  the  Ori- 
noco; to  the  efforts  of  his  government  to  ad- 
just her  difficulty  with  Great  Britain,  and  to 
the  delays  interposed ;  and  finally  expressed  his 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  63 

confident  belief  that  the  United  States  would 
not  view  with  indifference  what  was  being 
done  in  a  matter  of  such  capital  importance. 

Mr.  Evarts  promptly  replied,  and  informed 
the  Venezuelan  representative  that  "in  view  of 
the  deep  interest  which  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  takes  in  all  transactions  tend- 
ing to  attempted  encroachments  of  foreign 
powers  upon  the  territory  of  any  of  the  re- 
publics of  this  continent,  this  Government 
could  not  look  with  indifference  to  the  forcible 
acquisition  of  such  territory  by  England,  if  the 
mission  of  the  vessels  now  at  the  mouth  of  the 
Orinoco  should  be  found  to  be  for  that  end." 

Again,  on  the  thirtieth  day  of  November, 
1 88 1,  our  minister  to  Venezuela  reported  to 
Mr.  Elaine,  who  had  succeeded  Mr.  Evarts  as 
Secretary  of  State,  an  interview  with  the  Presi- 
dent of  Venezuela  at  his  request,  in  which  the 
subject  of  the  boundary  dispute  was  discussed. 
Our  minister  represented  that  the  question  was 
spoken  of  by  the  President  as  being  of  essen- 
tial importance  and  a  source  of  great  anxiety 
to  him,  involving  a  large  and  fertile  territory 
between  the  Essequibo  and  Orinoco,  and  prob- 
ably the  control  of  the  mouth  and  a  consider- 


64  THE  VENEZUELAN 

able  portion  of  the  latter  river;  and  he  alleged 
that  the  policy  of  Great  Britain,  in  the  treat- 
ment of  this  question,  had  been  delay — the  in- 
terval being  utilized  by  gradually  but  steadily 
extending  her  interest  and  authority  into  the 
disputed  territory;  and  "that,  though  the 
rights  of  Venezuela  were  clear  and  indispu- 
table, he  questioned  her  ability,  unaided  by 
some  friendly  nation,  to  maintain  them." 

In  July,  1882,  Mr.  Frelinghuysen,  successor 
to  Mr.  Elaine,  sent  to  our  representative  at 
Venezuela  a  despatch  to  be  communicated  to 
the  government  of  the  republic,  in  which  he 
stated  that,  if  Venezuela  desired  it,  the  United 
States  would  propose  to  the  Government  of 
Great  Britain  that  the  boundary  question  be 
submitted  to  the  arbitrament  of  a  third  power. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  a  proposition  for 
arbitration  had  been  made  by  Venezuela  to 
Great  Britain  in  February,  1881,  and  that 
Great  Britain  had  refused  to  accede  to  it. 

In  July,  1884,  Mr.  Frelinghuysen  sent  a  con- 
fidential despatch  to  Mr.  Lowell,  our  minister 
to  Great  Britain,  informing  him  that  Guzman 
Blanco,  ex-President  of  Venezuela,  who  had 
recently  been  accredited  as  a  special  envoy 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  65 

from  his  country  to  Great  Britain,  had  called 
on  him  relative  to  the  objects  of  his  mission, 
in  respect  of  which  he  desired  to  obtain  the 
good  offices  of  this  Government,  and  that 
doubtless  he  would  seek  to  confer  with  Mr. 
Lowell  in  London.  He  further  informed  Mr. 
Lowell  that  he  had  told  the  Venezuelan  envoy 
that,  "in  view  of  our  interest  in  all  that  touches 
the  independent  life  of  the  Republics  of  the 
American  Continent,  the  United  States  could 
not  be  indifferent  to  anything  that  might  im- 
pair their  normal  self-control" ;  that  "the  moral 
position  of  the  United  States  in  these  matters 
was  well  known  through  the  enunciation  of 
the  Monroe  Doctrine,"  though  formal  action 
in  the  direction  of  applying  that  doctrine  to  a 
speculative  case  affecting  Venezuela  seemed  to 
him  to  be  inopportune,  and  therefore  he  could 
not  advise  Venezuela  to  arouse  a  discussion  of 
that  point.  He  instructed  our  minister  to  show 
proper  consideration  to  the  Venezuelan  envoy, 
and  to  "take  proper  occasion  to  let  Lord  Gran- 
ville  know  that  we  are  not  without  concern  as 
to  whatever  may  affect  the  interest  of  a  sister 
Republic  of  the  American  Continent  and  its 
position  in  the  family  of  nations." 


66  THE  VENEZUELAN 

In  July,  1885,  the  Venezuelan  minister  to 
the  United  States  addressed  a  communication 
to  Secretary  of  State  Bayard,  setting  forth  the 
correspondence  which  had  already  taken  place 
between  our  Government  and  that  of  Vene- 
zuela touching  the  boundary  dispute,  and  re- 
ferring to  the  serious  conditions  existing  on 
account  of  the  renewed  aggressions  of  Great 
Britain. 

Mr.  Bayard  thereupon  sent  a  despatch  on 
the  subject  to  Mr.  Phelps,  our  diplomatic  rep- 
resentative to  England,  in  which,  after  stating 
that  the  Venezuelan  Government  had  never 
definitely  declared  what  course  she  desired  us 
to  pursue,  but,  on  the  contrary,  had  expressed 
a  desire  to  be  guided  by  our  counsel,  he  said : 
"The  good  offices  of  this  Government  have 
been  tendered  to  Venezuela  to  suggest  to  Great 
Britain  the  submission  of  the  boundary  dis- 
pute to  arbitration;  but  when  shown  that  such 
action  on  our  part  would  exclude  us  from  act- 
ing as  arbitrator,  Venezuela  ceased  to  press  the 
matter  in  that  direction" ;  and  the  next  day 
after  writing  this  despatch  Mr.  Bayard  in- 
formed the  Venezuelan  minister  that  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  could  not  entertain  a 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  67 

request  to  act  as  umpire  in  any  dispute  un- 
less it  should  come  concurrently  from  both 
contestants. 

In  December,  1886,  our  minister  to  Vene- 
zuela addressed  a  despatch  to  Mr.  Bayard, 
in  which  he  reported  that  matters  looked  very 
angry  and  threatening  in  Venezuela  on  account 
of  fresh  aggressions  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain  in  the  disputed  territory;  and  he  ex- 
pressed the  fear  that  an  open  rupture  might 
occur  between  the  two  countries.  He  inclosed 
a  statement  made  by  the  Venezuelan  Minister 
of  Foreign  Affairs,  containing  a  list  of  griev- 
ances, followed  by  this  declaration :  "Vene- 
zuela, listening  to  the  advice  of  the  United 
States,  has  endeavored  several  times  to  obtain 
that  the  difference  should  be  submitted  to  the 
award  of  a  third  power.  .  .  .  But  such  efforts 
have  proven  fruitless,  and  the  possibility  of 
that  result,  the  only  one  prescribed  by  our  con- 
stitution, being  arrived  at,  becomes  more  and 
more  remote  from  day  to  day.  Great  Britain 
has  been  constant  in  her  clandestine  advances 
upon  the  Venezuelan  territory,  not  taking  into 
consideration  either  the  rights  or  the  com- 
plaints of  this  Republic."  And  he  adds  the 


68  THE  VENEZUELAN 

following  declaration :  "Under  such  circum- 
stances the  Government  has  but  two  courses 
left  open:  either  to  employ  force  in  order  to 
recover  places  from  which  force  has  ejected 
the  Republic,  since  its  amicable  representations 
on  the  subject  have  failed  to  secure  redress, 
or  to  present  a  solemn  protest  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  against  so  great  an 
abuse,  which  is  an  evident  declaration  of  war 
— a  provocative  aggression." 

Thereupon,  and  on  the  twentieth  day  of  De- 
cember, 1886,  a  despatch  was  sent  by  Mr. 
Bayard  to  Mr.  Phelps,  in  which  the  secretary 
comments  on  the  fact  that  at  no  time  thereto- 
fore had  the  good  offices  of  our  Government 
been  actually  tendered  to  avert  a  rupture  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  Venezuela,  and  that 
our  inaction  in  this  regard  seemed  to  be  due  to 
the  reluctance  of  Venezuela  to  have  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  take  any  steps 
having  relation  to  the  action  of  the  British 
Government  which  might,  in  appearance  even, 
prejudice  the  resort  to  our  arbitration  or  medi- 
ation which  Venezuela  desired;  but  that  the 
intelligence  now  received  warranted  him  in 
tendering  the  good  offices  of  the  United  States 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  69 

to  promote  an  amicable  settlement  of  the  diffi- 
culty between  the  two  countries,  and  offering 
our  arbitration  if  acceptable  to  both  countries 
— as  he  supposed  the  dispute  turned  upon 
simple  and  readily  ascertainable  historical 
facts. 

Additional  complaints  against  Great  Britain 
on  account  of  further  trespasses  on  Venezue- 
lan territory  were  contained  in  a  note  from 
the  Venezuelan  minister  to  Mr.  Bayard,  dated 
January  4,  1887.  I  shall  quote  only  the  fol- 
lowing passage : 

My  Government  has  tried  all  possible  means  to 
induce  that  of  London  to  accept  arbitration,  as 
advised  by  the  United  States ;  this,  however,  has 
resulted  in  nothing  but  fresh  attempts  against  the 
integrity  of  the  territory  by  the  colonial  authori- 
ties of  Demerara.  It  remains  to  be  seen  how  long 
my  Government  will  find  it  possible  to  exercise 
forbearance  transcending  the  limits  of  its  positive 
official  duty. 

Pursuant  to  his  instructions  from  Mr.  Bay- 
ard, our  minister  to  Great  Britain  formally 
tendered  to  the  English  Government,  on  the 


70  THE  VENEZUELAN 

eighth  day  of  February,  1887,  the  good  offices 
of  the  United  States  to  promote  an  amicable 
settlement  of  the  pending  controversy,  and 
offered  our  arbitration,  if  acceptable  to  both 
parties. 

A  few  days  afterward  Lord  Salisbury,  on 
behalf  of  Great  Britain,  replied  that  the  atti- 
tude which  had  been  taken  by  the  President  of 
the  Venezuelan  republic  precluded  her  Maj- 
esty's Government  from  submitting  the  ques- 
tion at  that  time  to  the  arbitration  of  any  third 
power. 

The  fact  that  Lord  Salisbury  had  declined 
our  offer  of  mediation  and  arbitration,  was 
promptly  conveyed  to  the  government  of  Vene- 
zuela; and  thereupon,  on  the  fourth  day  of 
May,  1887,  her  minister  at  Washington  ad- 
dressed another  note  to  our  Secretary  of  State 
indicating  much  depression  on  account  of  the 
failure  of  all  efforts  up  to  that  time  made  to 
induce  Great  Britain  to  agree  to  a  settlement 
of  the  controversy  by  arbitration,  and  express- 
ing the  utmost  gratitude  for  the  steps  taken  by 
our  Government  in  aid  of  those  efforts.  He 
also  referred  to  the  desire  his  government  once 
entertained  that,  in  case  arbitration  could  be 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  71 

attained,  the  United  States  might  be  selected  as 
arbitrator,  and  to  the  fact  that  this  desire  had 
been  relinquished  because  the  maintenance  of 
impartiality  essential  in  an  arbitrator  would 
"seriously  impair  the  efficiency  of  action  which 
for  the  furtherance  of  the  common  interests  of 
America,  and  in  obedience  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  immortal  Monroe,  should  possess  all  the 
vitality  that  the  alarming  circumstances  de- 
mand" ;  and  he  begged  the  secretary  to  instruct 
our  representative  in  London  "to  insist,  in  the 
name  of  the  United  States  Government,  upon 
the  necessity  of  submitting  the  boundary  ques- 
tion between  Venezuela  and  British  Guiana  to 
arbitration." 

I  have  heretofore  refrained  from  stating  in 
detail  the  quite  numerous  instances  of  quarrel 
and  collision  that  occurred  in  and  near  the  dis- 
puted territory,  with  increasing  frequency, 
during  this  controversy.  One  of  these,  how- 
ever, I  think  should  be  here  mentioned.  It 
seems  that  in  1883  two  vessels  belonging  to 
English  subjects  were  seized  and  their  crews 
taken  into  custody  by  Venezuelan  officials  in 
the  disputed  region,  for  alleged  violations  of 
the  laws  of  Venezuela  within  her  jurisdiction, 


72  THE  VENEZUELAN 

and  that  English  officials  had  assumed,  without 
any  judicial  determination  and  without  any 
notice  to  Venezuela  to  assess  damages  against 
her  on  account  of  such  seizure  and  arrests,  in 
an  amount  which,  with  interest,  amounted  in 
1887  to  about  forty  thousand  dollars.  On  the 
seventh  day  of  October  in  that  year,  the  gover- 
nor of  Trinidad,  an  English  island  near  the 
mouth  of  the  Orinoco,  in  a  letter  to  the  Minis- 
ter of  Foreign  Affairs  for  Venezuela,  declared 
that  her  Majesty's  Government  could  not  per- 
mit such  injuries  to  remain  unredressed,  or 
their  representations  to  be  disregarded  any 
longer,  and  thereupon  it  was  demanded  that 
the  money  claimed,  with  interest,  be  paid  with- 
in seven  days  from  the  delivery  of  said  letter. 
The  letter  concluded  as  follows : 

Failing  compliance  with  the  above  demands 
Her  Majesty's  Government  will  be  reluctantly 
compelled  to  instruct  the  Commander  of  Her 
Majesty's  naval  forces  in  the  West  Indies  to  take 
such  measures  as  he  may  deem  necessary  to  obtain 
that  reparation  which  has  been  vainly  sought  for 
by  friendly  means ;  and  in  case  of  so  doing  they 
will  hold  the  Venezuelan  Government  responsible 
for  any  consequences  that  may  arise. 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  73 

Venezuela  did  not  fail  to  appreciate  and 
frankly  acknowledge  that,  in  her  defenseless 
condition,  there  was  no  escape  from  the  pay- 
ment of  the  sum  which  England,  as  a  judge 
in  its  own  cause,  had  decreed  against  her.  The 
President  of  the  republic,  however,  in  a  prompt 
reply  to  the  governor's  note,  characterized  its 
terms  as  "offensive  to  the  dignity  of  the  na- 
tion and  to  the  equality  which,  according  to 
the  principles  of  the  rights  of  nations,  all 
countries  enjoy  without  any  regard  to  their 
strength  or  weakness."  Thereupon  he  sought 
the  good  offices  of  our  minister  to  Venezuela 
in  an  effort  to  procure  a  withdrawal  of  the 
objectionable  communication.  This  was  at- 
tempted in  a  note  sent  by  the  American  minis- 
ter to  the  governor  of  Trinidad,  in  which  he 
said: 

I  hope  your  Excellency  will  permit  me  to  sug- 
gest as  a  mutual  friend  of  both  parties,  the 
suspension  or  withdrawal  of  your  note  of  the 
7th  instant,  so  that  negotiations  may  at  once  be 
opened  for  the  immediate  and  final  settlement  of 
the  afore-mentioned  claims  without  further  re- 
sort to  unpleasant  measures.  From  reprcsenta- 


74 


THE  VENEZUELAN 


tions  made  to  me,  I  am  satisfied  that  if  the  note 
of  the  7th  instant  is  withdrawn  temporarily  even, 
Venezuela  will  do  in  the  premises  that  which  will 
prove  satisfactory  to  your  Government. 

A  few  days  after  this  note  was  sent,  a  reply 
was  received  in  which  the  governor  of  Trini- 
dad courteously  expressed  his  thanks  to  our 
minister  for  his  good  offices,  and  informed  him 
that,  as  the  Government  of  Venezuela  regarded 
his  note  of  October  7  "as  offensive,  and  ap- 
peared desirous  of  at  last  settling  this  long- 
pending  question  in  a  friendly  spirit,"  he 
promptly  telegraphed  to  her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment asking  permission  to  withdraw  that 
note  and  substitute  a  less  forcible  one  for  it; 
and  that  he  had  just  been  informed  by  his 
home  government  in  reply  that  this  arrange- 
ment could  not  be  sanctioned. 

Our  minister  reported  this  transaction  to  his 
home  government  at  Washington  on  the  fourth 
day  of  November,  1887,  and  stated  that  the 
money  demanded  by  Great  Britain  had  been 
paid  by  Venezuela  under  protest. 

Venezuela  may  have  been  altogether  at  fault 
in  the  transaction  out  of  which  this  demand 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  75 

arose ;  the  amount  which  England  exacted  may 
not  have  been  unreasonable;  and  the  method 
of  its  assessment,  though  not  the  most  consid- 
erate possible,  has  support  in  precedent;  and 
even  the  threat  of  a  naval  force  may  sometimes 
be  justified  in  enforcing  unheeded  demands. 
I  have  not  adverted  to  this  incident  for  the 
purpose  of  inviting  judgment  on  any  of  its 
phases,  but  only  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  it  was  allowed  to  culminate  with  seem- 
ingly studied  accompaniments  of  ruthlessness 
and  irritation,  at  a  time  when  a  boundary  ques- 
tion was  pending  between  the  two  nations, 
when  the  weaker  contestant  was  importuning 
the  stronger  for  arbitration,  and  when  a  desire 
for  reconciliation  and  peace  in  presence  of 
strained  relations  should  have  counseled  con- 
siderateness  and  magnanimity — all  this  in 
haughty  disregard  of  the  solicitous  and  ex- 
pressed desire  of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  to  induce  a  peaceful  adjustment  of  the 
boundary  dispute,  and  in  curt  denial  of  our 
request  that  this  especially  disturbing  incident 
should  be  relieved  of  its  most  exasperating 
features. 

In  the  trial  of  causes  before  our  courts,  evi- 


76  THE  VENEZUELAN 

deuce  is  frequently  introduced  to  show  the  ani- 
mus or  intent  of  litigating  parties. 

Perhaps  strict  decorum  hardly  permits  us  to 
adopt  the  following  language,  used  by  the 
Venezuelan  minister  when  reporting  to  our 
Secretary  of  State  the  anticipated  arrival  of  a 
British  war-steamer  to  enforce  the  demand  of 
Great  Britain : 

Such  alarming  news  shows  evidently  that  the 
Government  of  Her  Britannic  Majesty,  en- 
couraged by  the  impunity  on  which  it  has  counted 
until  now  for  the  realization  of  its  unjust  designs 
with  regard  to  Venezuela,  far  from  procuring  a 
pacific  and  satisfactory  agreement  on  the  differ- 
ent questions  pending  with  the  latter,  is  especially 
eager  to  complicate  in  order  to  render  less  possi- 
ble every  day  that  equitable  solution  which  has 
been  so  fully  the  endeavor  of  my  people. 

On  the  fifteenth  day  of  February,  1888,  the 
Venezuelan  minister,  in  communicating  to  our 
Government  information  he  had  received  touch- 
ing a  decree  of  the  governor  of  Demerara 
denying  the  validity  of  a  contract  entered  into 
by  the  Government  of  Venezuela  for  the  con- 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  77 

struction  of  a  railway  between  certain  points  in 
the  territory  claimed  by  Venezuela,  commented 
on  the  affair  as  follows : 

England  has  at  last  declared  emphatically  that 
her  rights  are  without  limit,  and  embrace  what- 
ever regions  may  be  suggested  to  her  by  her 
insatiate  thirst  for  conquest.  She  even  goes  so 
far  as  to  deny  the  validity  of  railway  grants 
comprised  within  territory  where  not  even  the 
wildest  dream  of  fancy  had  ever  conceived  that 
the  day  would  come  when  Venezuela's  right 
thereto  could  be  disputed.  The  fact  is  that  until 
now  England  has  relied  upon  impunity.  She  be- 
holds in  us  a  weak  and  unfriended  nation,  and 
seeks  to  make  the  Venezuelan  coast  and  territor- 
ies the  base  of  a  conquest  which,  if  circumstances 
are  not  altered,  will  have  no  other  bounds  than 
the  dictates  of  her  own  will. 


Mr.  Bayard,  in  a  despatch  transmitting  this 
to  our  minister  to  England,  says  that  our  Gov- 
ernment has  heretofore  acted  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  the  boundary  controversy  between 
Great  Britain  and  Venezuela  was  one  based  on 
historical  facts,  which  without  difficulty  could 
be  determined  according  to  evidence,  but  that 
the  British  pretension  now  stated  gives  rise  to 
grave  disquietude,  and  creates  the  apprehen- 
sion that  their  territorial  claim  does  not  follow 
historical  traditions  or  evidence,  but  is  appar- 
ently indefinite.  He  refers  to  the  British  Colo- 
nial Office  list  of  previous  years,  and  calls 
attention  to  the  wide  detour  to  the  westward 
in  the  boundaries  of  British  Guiana  between 
the  years  1877  and  1887,  as  shown  in  that 
record.  He  suggests  that  our  minister  "ex- 
press anew  to  Lord  Salisbury  the  great  gratifi- 
cation it  would  afford  our  Government  to  see 
the  Venezuelan  dispute  amicably  and  honor- 
ably settled  by  arbitration  or  otherwise,"  and 
78 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  79 

adds:  "If  indeed  it  should  appear  that  there 
is  no  fixed  limit  to  the  British  boundary  claim, 
our  good  disposition  to  aid  in  a  settlement 
might  not  only  be  defeated,  but  be  obliged  to 
give  place  to  a  feeling  of  grave  concern." 

It  was  about  this  time  that  the  Venezuelan 
minister,  in  a  note  expressing  his  appreciation 
of  our  efforts  to  bring  about  a  settlement  of  the 
dispute,  made  the  following  statement : 

Disastrous  and  fatal  consequences  would  ensue 
for  the  independence  of  South  America  if,  under 
the  pretext  of  a  question  of  boundaries,  Great 
Britain  should  succeed  in  consummating  the 
usurpation  of  a  third  part  of  our  territory,  and 
therewith  a  river  so  important  as  the  Orinoco. 
Under  the  pretext  of  a  mere  question  of  boun- 
daries which  began  on  the  banks  of  Essequibo, 
we  now  find  ourselves  on  the  verge  of  losing 
regions  lying  more  than  five  degrees  away  from 
that  river. 


On  May  i,  1890,  Mr.  Elaine,  Mr.  Bayard's 
successor  as  Secretary  of  State,  instructed  Mr. 
Rotort  T.  Lincoln,  our  minister  to  England, 
"to  use  his  good  offices  with  Lord  Salisbury  to 


8o  THE  VENEZUELAN 

bring  about  the  resumption  of  diplomatic  inter- 
course between  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela 
as  a  preliminary  step  toward  the  settlement  of 
the  boundary  dispute  by  arbitration."  He  also 
requested  him  "to  propose  to  Lord  Salisbury, 
with  a  view  to  an  accommodation,  that  an  in- 
formal conference  be  had  in  Washington  or  in 
London  of  representatives  of  the  three  pow- 
ers." The  secretary  added :  "In  such  confer- 
ence the  position  of  the  United  States  is 
one  solely  of  impartial  friendship  toward  both 
litigants." 

In  response  to  this  instruction  Mr.  Lincoln 
had  an  interview  with  Lord  Salisbury.  On 
this  occasion  his  Lordship  said  that  her  Maj- 
esty's Government  had  not  for  some  time  been 
keen  in  attempts  to  settle  the  dispute,  in  view 
of  their  feeling  of  uncertainty  as  to  the  sta- 
bility of  the  present  Venezuelan  Government 
and  the  frequency  of  revolutions  in  that  quar- 
ter; but  that  he  would  take  pleasure  in  con- 
sidering our  suggestion  after  consulting  the 
Colonial  Office,  to  which  it  would  first  have  to 
be  referred.  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  giving  his  im- 
pressions derived  from  the  interview,  says  that 
"while  Lord  Salisbury  did  not  intimate  what 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  8l 

would  probably  be  the  nature  of  his  reply,  there 
was  certainly  nothing  unfavorable  in  his  man- 
ner of  receiving  the  suggestion" ;  and  he  fol- 
lows this  with  these  significant  words :  "If  the 
matter  had  been  entirely  new  and  dissociated 
with  its  previous  history,  I  should  have  felt 
from  his  tone  that  the  idea  of  arbitration  in 
some  form,  to  put  an  end  to  the  boundary 
dispute,  was  quite  agreeable  to  him." 

On  the  26th  of  May,  1890,  Lord  Salisbury 
addressed  a  note  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  in  which  his 
Lordship  stated  that  her  Majesty's  Govern- 
ment was  at  that  moment  in  communication 
with  the  Venezuelan  minister  in  Paris,  who 
had  been  authorized  to  express  the  desire  of 
his  Government  for  the  renewal  of  diplomatic 
relations,  and  to  discuss  the  conditions  on 
which  it  might  be  effected ;  that  the  terms  on 
which  her  Majesty's  Government  considered 
that  a  settlement  of  the  question  in  issue  be- 
tween the  two  countries  might  be  made,  had 
been  communicated  to  Venezuela's  representa- 
tive: that  his  reply  was  still  awaited,  and  that 
the  British  Government  "would  wish  to  have 
the  opportunity  of  examining  that  reply,  and 
ascertaining  what  prospect  it  would  afford  of 


82  THE  VENEZUELAN 

an  adjustment  of  existing  differences,  before 
considering  the  expediency  of  having  recourse 
to  the  good  offices  of  a  third  party." 

No  mention  was  made,  in  this  communica- 
tion, nor  at  any  time  thereafter,  so  far  as  I 
can  discover,  of  Mr.  Elaine's  proposal  of  a 
conference  among  representatives  of  the  three 
nations  interested  in  an  adjustment. 

Lord  Salisbury,  in  a  despatch  to  the  English 
representative  at  Washington,  dated  Novem- 
ber n,  1891,  stated  that  our  minister  to  Eng- 
land had,  in  conversation  with  him,  renewed, 
on  the  part  of  our  Government,  the  expression 
of  a  hope  that  the  Government  of  Great  Britain 
would  refer  the  boundary  dispute  to  arbitra- 
tion; that  his  Lordship  had  expressed  his 
willingness  to  submit  to  arbitration  all  the 
questions  which  seemed  to  his  government  to 
be  fairly  capable  of  being  treated  as  questions 
of  controversy ;  that  the  principal  obstacle  was 
the  rupture  of  diplomatic  relations  caused  by 
Venezuela's  act;  and  that  before  the  Govern- 
ment of  Great  Britain  could  renew  negotiations 
they  must  be  satisfied  that  those  relations  were 
about  to  be  resumed  with  a  prospect  of  their 
continuance. 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  83 

While  our  Government  was  endeavoring  to 
influence  Great  Britain  in  the  direction  of  fair 
and  just  arbitration,  and  receiving  for  our 
pains  only  barren  assurances  and  procrastinat- 
ing excuses,  the  appeals  of  Venezuela  for  help, 
stimulated  by  allegations  of  constantly  in- 
creasing English  pretensions,  were  incessantly 
ringing  in  our  ears. 

Without  mentioning  a  number  of  these  ap- 
peals, and  passing  over  a  period  of  more  than 
two  years,  I  shall  next  refer  to  a  representation 
made  by  the  Venezuelan  minister  at  Washing- 
ton on  March  31,  1894,  to  Mr.  Gresham,  who 
was  then  our  Secretary  of  State.  In  this  com- 
munication the  course  of  the  controversy  and 
the  alleged  unauthorized  acts  of  England  from 
the  beginning  to  that  date  were  rehearsed  with 
circumstantial  particularity.  The  conduct  of 
Great  Britain  in  refusing  arbitration  was  again 
reprobated,  and  pointed  reference  was  made  to 
a  principle  which  had  been  asserted  by  the 
United  States,  "that  the  nations  of  the  Ameri- 
can continent,  after  having  acquired  the  liberty 
and  independence  which  they  enjoy  and  main- 
tain, were  not  subject  to  colonization  by  any 
European  power."  The  minister  further  de- 


84  THE  VENEZUELAN 

clared  that  "Venezuela  has  been  ready  to  ad- 
here to  the  conciliatory  counsel  of  the  United 
States  that  a  conference,  consisting  of  its  own 
Representative  and  those  of  the  two  parties, 
should  meet  at  Washington  or  London  for  the 
purpose  of  preparing  an  honorable  reestablish- 
ment  of  harmony  between  the  litigants,"  and 
that  "Great  Britain  has  disregarded  the  equit- 
able proposition  of  the  United  States." 

On  July  13,  1894,  Mr.  Gresham  sent  a  de- 
spatch to  Mr.  Bayard,  formerly  Secretary  of 
State,  but  then  ambassador  to  England,  in- 
closing the  communication  of  the  Venezuelan 
minister,  calling  particular  attention  to  its  con- 
tents, and  at  the  same  time  briefly  discussing 
the  boundary  dispute.  In  this  despatch  Mr. 
Gresham  said : 

The  recourse  to  arbitration  first  proposed  in 
1881,  having  been  supported  by  your  predecessors, 
was  in  turn  advocated  by  you,  in  a  spirit  of 
friendly  regard  for  the  two  nations  involved.  In 
the  meantime  successive  advances  of  British  set- 
tlers in  the  region  admittedly  in  dispute  were 
followed  by  similar  advances  of  British  Colonial 
administration,  contesting  and  supplanting  Vene- 
zuelan claims  to  exercise  authority  therein. 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  85 

He  adds:  "Toward  the  end  of  1887,  the 
British  territorial  claim,  which  had,  as  it  would 
seem,  been  silently  increased  by  some  twenty- 
three  thousand  square  miles  between  1885  and 
1886,  took  another  comprehensive  sweep  west- 
ward to  embrace"  a  certain  rich  mining  dis- 
trict. "Since  then,"  the  secretary  further 
states,  "repeated  efforts  have  been  made  by 
Venezuela  as  a  directly  interested  party,  and 
by  the  United  States  as  the  impartial  friend  of 
both  countries,  to  bring  about  a  resumption  of 
diplomatic  relations,  which  had  been  suspended 
in  consequence  of  the  dispute  now  under  con- 
sideration." 

This  despatch  concludes  as  follows  : 

The  President  is  inspired  by  a  desire  for  a 
peaceable  and  honorable  adjustment  of  the  exist- 
ing difficulties  between  an  American  state  and  a 
powerful  transatlantic  nation,  and  would  be  glad 
to  see  the  reestablishment  of  such  diplomatic  re- 
lations between  them  as  would  promote  that  end. 
I  can  discover  but  two  equitable  solutions  to  the 
present  controversy.  One  is  the  arbitral  deter- 
mination of  the  rights  of  the  disputants  as  the 
respective  successors  to  the  historical  rights  of 


86  THE  VENEZUELAN 

Holland  and  Spain  over  the  region  in  question. 
The  other  is  to  create  a  new  boundary-line  in 
accordance  with  the  dictates  of  mutual  expedi- 
ency and  consideration.  The  two  Governments 
having  so  far  been  unable  to  agree  on  a  conven- 
tional line,  the  consistent  and  conspicuous 
advocacy  by  the  United  States  and  England  of 
the  principle  of  arbitration,  and  their  recourse 
thereto  in  settlement  of  important  questions  aris- 
ing between  them,  makes  such  a  mode  of  adjust- 
ment especially  appropriate  in  the  present 
instance ;  and  this  Government  will  gladly  do 
what  it  can  to  further  a  determination  in  that 
sense. 

In  another  despatch  to  Mr.  Bayard,  dated 
December  i,  1894,  Mr.  Gresham  says: 

I  cannot  believe  Her  Majesty's  Government 
will  maintain  that  the  validity  of  their  claim  to 
territory  long  in  dispute  between  the  two  coun- 
tries shall  be  conceded  as  a  condition  precedent  to 
the  arbitration  of  the  question  whether  Venezuela 
is  entitled  to  other  territory,  which  until  a  recent 
period  was  never  in  doubt.  Our  interest  in  the 
question  has  repeatedly  been  shown  by  our 
friendly  efforts  to  further  a  settlement  alike  hon- 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  87 

orable  to  both  countries,  and  the  President  is 
pleased  to  know  that  Venezuela  will  soon  renew 
her  efforts  to  bring  about  such  an  adjustment. 

Two  days  afterward,  on  December  3,  1894, 
the  President's  annual  message  was  sent  to  the 
Congress,  containing  the  following  reference 
to  the  controversy: 

The  boundary  of  British  Guiana  still  remains 
in  dispute  between  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela. 
Believing  that  its  early  settlement  on  some  just 
basis  alike  honorable  to  both  parties  is  in  the  line 
of  our  established  policy  to  remove  from  this 
hemisphere  all  causes  of  difference  with  powers 
beyond  the  sea,  I  shall  renew  the  efforts  hereto- 
fore made  to  bring  about  a  restoration  of  diplo- 
matic relations  between  the  disputants  and  to 
induce  a  reference  to  arbitration — a  resort  which 
Great  Britain  so  conspicuously  favors  in  principle 
and  respects  in  practice,  and  which  is  earnestly 
sought  by  her  weaker  adversary. 

On  the  twenty-second  day  of  February, 
1895,  a  joint  resolution  was  passed  by  the  Con- 
gress, earnestly  recommending  to  both  parties 
in  interest  the  President's  suggestion  "that 


88  THE  VENEZUELAN 

Great  Britain  and  Venezuela  refer  their  dis- 
pute as  to  boundaries  to  friendly  arbitration." 
A  despatch  dated  February  23,  1895,  from 
Great  Britain's  Foreign  Office  to  the  English 
ambassador  at  Washington,  stated  that  on  the 
twenty-fifth  day  of  January,  1895,  our  ambas- 
sador, Mr.  Bayard,  had,  in  an  official  interview, 
referred  to  the  boundary  controversy,  and  said 
"that  his  Government  would  gladly  lend  their 
good  offices  to  bring  about  a  settlement  by 
means  of  an  arbitration."  The  despatch  fur- 
ther stated  that  Mr.  Bayard  had  thereupon 
been  informed  that  her  Majesty's  Government 
had  expressed  their  willingness  to  submit  the 
question,  within  certain  limits,  to  arbitration, 
but  could  not  agree  to  the  more  extensive  ref- 
erence on  which  the  Venezuelan  Government 
insisted;  that  Mr.  Bayard  called  again  on  the 
twentieth  day  of  February,  when  a  memoran- 
dum was  read  to  him  concerning  the  situation 
and  a  map  shown  him  of  the  territory  in  dis- 
pute; that  at  the  same  time  he  was  informed 
that  the  Venezuelans  had  recently  made  an  ag- 
gression upon  the  territory  of  English  occupa- 
tion, and,  according  to  report,  ill-treated  some 
of  the  colonial  police  stationed  there,  and  that 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  89 

it  was  the  boundary  defined  by  the  Schomburgk 
line  which  had  thus  been  violated  in  a  marked 
manner  by  the  Venezuelans. 

This  despatch  concludes  as  follows: 

On  Mr.  Bayard's  observing  that  the  United 
States  Government  was  anxious  to  do  anything 
in  their  power  to  facilitate  a  settlement  of  the 
difficulty  by  arbitration,  I  reminded  his  Excel- 
lency that  although  Her  Majesty's  Government 
were  ready  to  go  to  arbitration  as  to  a  certain 
portion  of  the  territory  which  I  had  pointed  out 
to  him,  they  could  not  consent  to  any  departure 
from  the  Schomburgk  line. 

It  now  became  plainly  apparent  that  a  new 
stage  had  been  reached  in  the  progress  of  our 
intervention,  and  that  the  ominous  happenings 
embraced  within  a  few  months  had  hastened 
the  day  when  we  were  challenged  to  take  our 
exact  bearings,  lest  we  should  miss  the  course 
of  honor  and  national  duty.  The  more  direct 
tone  that  had  been  given  to  our  despatches  con- 
cerning the  dispute,  our  more  insistent  and  em- 
phatic suggestion  of  arbitration,  the  serious 
reference  to  the  subject  in  the  President's  mes- 


90  THE  VENEZUELAN 

sage,  the  significant  resolution  passed  by  Con- 
gress earnestly  recommending  arbitration,  all 
portended  a  growth  of  conviction  on  the  part 
of  our  Government  concerning  this  contro- 
versy, which  gave  birth  to  pronounced  disap- 
pointment and  anxiety  when  Great  Britain, 
concurrently  with  these  apprising  incidents,  re- 
peated in  direct  and  positive  terms  her  refusal 
to  submit  to  arbitration  except  on  condition 
that  a  portion  of  the  disputed  territory  which 
Venezuela  had  always  claimed  to  be  hers 
should  at  the  outset  be  irrevocably  conceded  to 
England. 

During  a  period  of  more  than  fourteen  years 
our  Government,  assuming  the  character  of  a 
mutual  and  disinterested  friend  of  both  coun- 
tries, had,  with  varying  assiduity,  tendered  its 
good  offices  to  bring  about  a  pacific  and  amica- 
ble settlement  of  this  boundary  controversy, 
only  to  be  repelled  with  more  or  less  civility  by 
Great  Britain.  We  had  seen  her  pretensions 
in  the  disputed  regions  widen  and  extend  in 
such  manner  and  upon  such  pretexts  as  seemed 
to  constitute  an  actual  or  threatened  violation 
of  a  doctrine  which  our  nation  long  ago  estab- 
lished, declaring  that  the  American  continents 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  91 

are  not  to  be  considered  subjects  for  future 
colonization  by  any  European  power;  and  de- 
spite all  this  we  had,  nevertheless,  hoped,  dur- 
ing all  these  years,  that  arrangement  and 
accommodation  between  the  principal  parties 
would  justify  us  in  keeping  an  invocation  of 
that  doctrine  in  the  background  of  the  discus- 
sion. Notwithstanding,  however,  all  our  ef- 
forts to  avoid  it,  we  could  not  be  unmindful 
of  the  conditions  which  the  progress  of  events 
had  created,  and  whose  meaning  and  whose  ex- 
igencies inexorably  confronted  us.  England 
had  finally  and  unmistakably  declared  that  all 
the  territory  embraced  within  the  Schomburgk 
line  was  indisputably  hers.  Venezuela  pre- 
sented a  claim  to  territory  within  the  same 
limits,  which  could  not  be  said  to  lack  strong 
support.  England  had  absolutely  refused  to 
I>ermit  Venezuela's  claim  to  be  tested  by  arbi- 
tration ;  and  Venezuela  was  utterly  powerless 
to  resist  by  force  England's  self-pronounced 
decree  of  ownership.  If  this  decree  was  not 
justified  by  the  facts,  and  it  should  be  enforced 
against  the  protest  and  insistence  of  Venezuela 
and  should  result  in  the  possession  and  coloni- 
zation of  Venezuelan  territory  by  Great  Brit- 


92  THE  VENEZUELAN 

ain,  it  seemed  quite  plain  that  the  American 
doctrine  which  denies  to  European  powers  the 
colonization  of  any  part  of  the  American  con- 
tinent would  be  violated. 

If  the  ultimatum  of  Great  Britain  as  to  her 
claim  of  territory  had  appeared  to  us  so  thor- 
oughly supported  upon  the  facts  as  to  admit  of 
small  doubt,  we  might  have  escaped  the  respon- 
sibility of  insisting  on  an  observance  of  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  in  the  premises,  on  our  own 
account,  and  have  still  remained  the  disinter- 
ested friend  of  both  countries,  merely  content- 
ing ourselves  with  benevolent  attempts  to 
reconcile  the  disputants.  We  are,  however,  far 
from  discovering  such  satisfactory  support  in 
the  evidence  within  our  reach.  On  the  con- 
trary, we  believe  that  the  effects  of  our  acqui- 
escence in  Great  Britain's  pretensions  would 
amount  to  a  failure  to  uphold  and  maintain  a 
principle  universally  accepted  by  our  Govern- 
ment and  our  people  as  vitally  essential  to  our 
national  integrity  and  welfare.  The  arbitra- 
tion, for  which  Venezuela  pleaded,  would  have 
adjudged  the  exact  condition  of  the  rival 
claims,  would  have  forever  silenced  Vene- 
zuela's complaints,  and  would  have  displaced 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  93 

by  conclusive  sentence  our  unwelcome  doubts 
and  suspicions;  but  this  Great  Britain  had  re- 
fused to  Venezuela,  and  thus  far  had  also 
denied  to  us. 

Recreancy  to  a  principle  so  fundamentally 
American  as  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  on  the  part 
of  those  charged  with  the  administration  of 
our  Government,  was  of  course  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  all  our  efforts  to 
avoid  its  assertion  had  miscarried,  there  was 
nothing  left  for  us  to  do  consistently  with 
national  honor  but  to  take  the  place  of  Vene- 
zuela in  the  controversy,  so  far  as  that  was 
necessary,  in  vindication  of  our  American 
doctrine.  Our  mild  and  amiable  proffers  of 
good  offices,  and  the  hopes  we  indulged  that 
at  last  they  might  be  the  means  of  securing  to 
a  weak  sister  republic  peace  and  justice,  and 
to  ourselves  immunity  from  sterner  interpo- 
sition, were  not  suited  to  the  new  emergency. 
In  the  advanced  condition  of  the  dispute,  sym- 
pathy with  Venezuela  and  solicitude  for  her 
distressed  condition  could  no  longer  constitute 
the  motive  power  of  our  conduct,  but  these 
were  to  give  way  to  the  duty  and  obligation 
of  protecting  our  own  national  rights. 


94 


THE  VENEZUELAN 


Mr.  Gresham,  who  since  the  fourth  day  of 
March,  1893,  had  been  our  Secretary  of  State, 
died  in  the  latter  days  of  May,  1895.  His 
love  of  justice,  his  sympathy  with  every  cause 
that  deserved  sympathy,  his  fearless  and  dis- 
interested patriotism,  and  his  rare  mental  en- 
dowments, combined  to  make  him  a  noble 
American  and  an  able  advocate  of  his  country's 
honor.  To  such  a  man  every  phase  of  the 
Venezuelan  boundary  dispute  strongly  ap- 
pealed ;  and  he  had  been  conscientiously  dili- 
gent in  acquainting  himself  with  its  history 
and  in  considering  the  contingencies  that  might 
arise  in  its  future  development.  Though  his 
death  was  most  lamentable,  I  have  always  con- 
sidered it  a  providential  circumstance  that  the 
Government  then  had  among  its  Cabinet  offi- 
cers an  exceptionally  strong  and  able  man,  in 
every  way  especially  qualified  to  fill  the  vacant 
place,  and  thoroughly  familiar  with  the  pend- 
ing controversy — which  seemed  every  day  to 
bring  us  closer  to  momentous  duty  and 
responsibility. 

Mr.  Olney  was  appointed  Secretary  of  State 
early  in  June,  1895 ;  and  promptly  thereafter, 
at  the  suggestion  of  the  President,  he  began, 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  95 

with  characteristic  energy  and  vigor,  to  make 
preparation  for  the  decisive  step  which  it 
seemed  should  no  longer  be  delayed. 

The  seriousness  of  the  business  we  had  in 
hand  was  fully  understood,  and  the  difficulty  or 
impossibility  of  retracing  the  step  we  contem- 
plated was  thoroughly  appreciated.  The  ab- 
solute necessity  of  certainty  concerning  the 
facts  which  should  underlie  our  action  was,  of 
course,  perfectly  apparent.  Whatever  our  be- 
liefs or  convictions  might  be,  as  derived  from 
the  examination  we  had  thus  far  given  the 
case,  and  however  strongly  we  might  be  per- 
suaded that  Great  Britain's  pretensions  could 
not  be  conceded  consistently  with  our  mainte- 
nance of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  it  would,  never- 
theless, have  been  manifestly  improper  and 
heedless  on  our  part  to  find  conclusively 
against  Great  Britain,  before  soliciting  her 
again  and  in  new  circumstances  to  give  us 
an  opportunity  to  judge  of  the  merits  of 
her  claims  through  the  submission  of  them  to 
arbitration. 

It  was  determined,  therefore,  that  a  commu- 
nication should  be  prepared  for  presentation 
to  the  British  Government  through  our  ambas- 


96  THE  VENEZUELAN 

sador  to  England,  detailing  the  progress  and 
incidents  of  the  controversy  as  we  appre* 
hended  them,  giving  a  thorough  exposition  of 
the  origin  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  the  rea- 
sons on  which  it  was  based,  demonstrating  our 
interest  in  the  controversy  because  of  its  rela- 
tion to  that  doctrine,  and  from  our  new  stand- 
point and  on  our  own  account  requesting  Great 
Britain  to  join  Venezuela  in  submitting  to  ar- 
bitration their  contested  claims  to  the  entire 
territory  in  dispute. 

This  was  accordingly  done;  and  a  despatch 
to  this  effect,  dated  July  20,  1895,  was  sent 
by  Mr.  Olney  to  her  Majesty's  Government 
through  Mr.  Bayard,  our  ambassador. 

The  Monroe  Doctrine  may  be  abandoned ; 
we  may  forfeit  it  by  taking  our  lot  with  na- 
tions that  expand  by  following  un-American 
ways;  we  may  outgrow  it,  as  we  seem  to  be 
outgrowing  other  things  we  once  valued ;  or 
it  may  forever  stand  as  a  guaranty  of  protec- 
tion and  safety  in  our  enjoyment  of  free  in- 
stitutions; but  in  no  event  will  this  American 
principle  ever  be  better  defined,  better  defend- 
ed, or  more  bravely  asserted  than  was  done  by 
Mr.  Olney  in  this  despatch. 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  97 

After  referring  to  the  various  incidents  of 
the  controversy,  and  stating  the  conditions  then 
existing,  it  was  declared : 

The  accuracy  of  the  foregoing  analysis  of  the 
existing  status  cannot,  it  is  believed,  be  chal- 
lenged. It  shows  that  status  to  be  such,  that 
those  charged  with  the  interests  of  the  United 
States  are  now  forced  to  determine  exactly  what 
those  interests  are  and  what  course  of  action 
they  require.  It  compels  them  to  decide  to  what 
extent,  if  any,  the  United  States  may  and  should 
intervene  in  a  controversy  between,  and  primarily 
concerning,  only  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela, 
and  to  decide  how  far  it  is  bound  to  see  that  the 
integrity  of  Venezuelan  territory  is  not  impaired 
by  the  pretensions  of  its  powerful  antagonist. 

After  an  exhaustive  explanation  and  vindi- 
cation of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and  after  as- 
serting that  aggressions  by  Great  Britain  on 
Venezuelan  soil  would  fall  within  its  purview, 
the  despatch  proceeded  as  follows : 

While  Venezuela  charges  such  usurpation, 
Great  Britain  denies  it ;  and  the  United  States, 
until  the  merits  are  authoritatively  ascertained, 


98  THE  VENEZUELAN 

can  takes  sides  with  neither.  But  while  this  is  so, 
—while  the  United  States  may  not  under  existing 
circumstances  at  least,  take  upon  itself  to  say 
which  of  the  two  parties  is  right  and  which  is 
wrong, — it  is  certainly  within  its  right  to  demand 
that  the  truth  be  ascertained.  Being  entitled  to 
resent  and  resist  any  sequestration  of  Venezuelan 
soil  by  Great  Britain,  it  is  necessarily  entitled  to 
know  whether  such  sequestration  has  occurred 
or  is  now  going  on.  ...  It  being  clear,  therefore, 
that  the  United  States  may  legitimately  insist 
upon  the  merits  of  the  boundary  question  being 
determined,  it  is  equally  clear  that  there  is  but 
one  feasible  mode  of  determining  them,  viz., 
peaceful  arbitration. 

The  demand  of  Great  Britain  that  her  right 
to  a  portion  of  the  disputed  territory  should  be 
acknowledged  as  a  condition  of  her  consent  to 
arbitration  as  to  the  remainder,  was  thus 
characterized : 

It  is  not  perceived  how  such  an  attitude  can  be 
defended,  nor  how  it  is  reconcilable  with  that 
love  of  justice  and  fair  play  so  eminently  charac- 
teristic of  the  English  race.  It  in  effect  deprives 
Venezuela  of  her  free  agency  and  puts  her  under 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  99 

virtual  duress.  Territory  acquired  by  reason  of 
it  will  be  as  much  wrested  from  her  by  the 
strong  hand  as  if  occupied  by  British  troops  or 
covered  by  British  fleets. 

The  despatch,  after  directing  the  presenta- 
tion to  Lord  Salisbury  of  the  views  it  con- 
tained, concluded  as  follows: 

They  call  for  a  definite  decision  upon  the  point 
whether  Great  Britain  will  consent  or  decline  to 
submit  the  Venezuelan  boundary  question  in  its 
entirety  to  impartial  arbitration.  It  is  the  earnest 
hope  of  the  President  that  the  conclusion  will  be 
on  the  side  of  arbitration,  and  that  Great  Britain 
will  add  one  more  to  the  conspicuous  precedents 
she  has  already  furnished  in  favor  of  that  wise 
and  just  mode  of  settling  international  disputes. 
If  he  is  to  be  disappointed  in  that  hope,  however, 
a  result  not  to  be  anticipated,  and  in  his  judgment 
calculated  to  greatly  embarrass  the  future  rela- 
tions between  this  country  and  Great  Britain, — 
it  is  his  wish  to  be  made  acquainted  with  the  fact 
at  such  early  date  as  will  enable  him  to  lay  the 
whole  subject  before  Congress  in  his  next  annual 
message. 


VI 

The  reply  of  Great  Britain  to  this  commu- 
nication consisted  of  two  despatches  addressed 
by  Lord  Salisbury  to  the  British  ambassador 
at  Washington  for  submission  to  our  Govern- 
ment. Though  dated  the  twenty-sixth  day  of 
November,  1895,  these  despatches  were  not 
presented  to  our  State  Department  until  a 
number  of  days  after  the  assemblage  of  the 
Congress  in  the  following  month.  In  one  of 
these  communications  Lord  Salisbury,  in  deal- 
ing with  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  the  right  or 
propriety  of  our  appeal  to  it  in  the  pending 
controversy,  declared :  "The  dangers  which 
were  apprehended  by  President  Monroe  have 
no  relation  to  the  state  of  things  in  which  we 
live  at  the  present  day."  He  further  declared : 

But  the  circumstances  with  which  President 
Monroe  was  dealing  and  those  to  which  the  pres- 
ent American  Government  is  addressing  itself 
have  very  few  features  in  common.  Great  Britain 
is  imposing  no  "system"  upon  Venezuela  and  is 
100 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  ioi 

not  concerning  herself  in  any  way  with  the  nature 
of  the  political  institutions  under  which  the  Vene- 
zuelans may  prefer  to  live.  But  the  British 
Empire  and  the  Republic  of  Venezuela  are 
neighbors,  and  they  have  differed  for  some  time 
past,  and  continue  to  differ,  as  to  the  line  by 
which  their  dominions  are  separated.  It  is  a 
controversy  with  which  the  United  States  have 
no  apparent  practical  concern.  .  .  .The  disputed 
frontier  of  Venezuela  has  nothing  to  do  with  any 
of  the  questions  dealt  with  by  President  Monroe. 

His  Lordship,  in  commenting  upon  our  posi- 
tion as  developed  in  Mr.  Olney's  despatch,  de- 
fined it  in  these  terms:  "If  any  independent 
American  state  advances  a  demand  for  terri- 
tory of  which  its  neighbor  claims  to  be  the 
owner,  and  that  neighbor  is  a  colony  of  an 
European  state,  the  United  States  have  a  right 
to  insist  that  the  European  state  shall  submit 
the  demand  and  its  own  impugned  rights  to 
arbitration." 

I  confess  I  should  be  greatly  disappointed 
if  I  believed  that  the  history  I  have  attempted 
to  give  of  this  controversy  did  not  easily  and 
promptly  suggest  that  this  definition  of  our 


102  THE  VENEZUELAN 

contention  fails  to  take  into  account  some  of 
its  most  important  and  controlling  features. 

Speaking  of  arbitration  as  a  method  of  ter- 
minating international  differences,  Lord  Salis- 
bury said : 

It  has  proved  itself  valuable  in  many  cases, 
but  it  is  not  free  from  defects  which  often 
operate  as  a  serious  drawback  on  its  value.  It 
is  not  always  easy  to  find  an  arbitrator  who  is 
competent  and  who,  at  the  same  time,  is  wholly 
free  from  bias ;  and  the  task  of  insuring  compli- 
ance with  the  award  when  it  is  made  is  not 
exempt  from  difficulty.  It  is  a  mode  of  settlement 
of  which  the  value  varies  much  according  to  the 
nature  of  the  controversy  to  which  it  is  applied 
and  the  character  of  the  litigants  who  appeal  to  it. 
Whether  in  any  particular  case  it  is  a  suitable 
method  of  procedure  is  generally  a  delicate  and 
difficult  question.  The  only  parties  who  are 
competent  to  decide  that  question  are  the  two 
parties  whose  rival  contentions  are  in  issue.  The 
claim  of  a  third  nation  which  is  unaffected  by  the 
controversy  to  impose  this  particular  procedure 
on  either  of  the  two  others  cannot  be  reasonably 
justified  and  has  no  foundation  in  the  law  of 
nations. 

Immediately    following    this    statement    his 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY 


103 


Lordship  again  touched  upon  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine for  the  purpose  of  specifically  disclaiming 
its  acceptance  by  her  Majesty's  Government  as 
a  sound  and  valid  principle.  He  says : 

It  must  always  be  mentioned  with  respect,  on 
account  of  the  distinguished  statesman  to  whom  it 
is  due  and  the  great  nation  who  have  generally 
adopted  it.  But  international  law  is  founded  on 
the  general  consent  of  nations ;  and  no  statesman, 
however  eminent,  and  no  nation,  however,  power- 
ful, are  competent  to  insert  into  the  code  of  inter- 
national law  a  novel  principle  which  was  never 
recognized  before,  and  which  has  not  since  been 
accepted  by  the  Government  of  any  other  country. 
The  United  States  have  a  right,  like  any  other 
nation,  to  interpose  in  any  controversy  by  which 
their  own  interests  are  affected;  and  they  are 
the  judge  whether  those  interests  are  touched 
and  in  what  measure  they  should  be  sustained. 
But  their  rights  are  in  no  way  strengthened  or 
extended  by  the  fact  that  the  controversy  affects 
some  territory  which  is  called  American. 

In  concluding  this  despatch  Lord  Salisbury 
declared  that  her  Majesty's  (iovernmcnt  "fully 
concur  with  the  view  which  President  Monroe 


104  THE  VENEZUELAN 

apparently  entertained,  that  any  disturbance 
of  the  existing  territorial  distribution  in  that 
hemisphere  by  any  fresh  acquisitions  on  the 
part  of  any  European  state  would  be  a  highly 
inexpedient  change.  But  they  are  not  prepared 
to  admit  that  the  recognition  of  that  expedi- 
ency is  clothed  with  the  sanction  which  belongs 
to  a  doctrine  of  international  law.  They  are 
not  prepared  to  admit  that  the  interests  of  the 
United  States  are  necessarily  concerned  in  any 
frontier  dispute  which  may  arise  between  any 
two  of  the  states  who  possess  dominions  in  the 
Western  Hemisphere;  and  still  less  can  they 
accept  the  doctrine  that  the  United  States  are 
entitled  to  claim  that  the  process  of  arbitration 
shall  be  applied  to  any  demand  for  the  sur- 
render of  territory  which  one  of  those  states 
may  make  against  another." 

The  other  despatch  of  Lord  Salisbury,  which 
accompanied  the  one  upon  which  I  have  com- 
mented, was  mainly  devoted  to  a  statement  of 
facts  and  evidence  on  Great  Britain's  side  in 
the  boundary  controversy ;  and  in  making  such 
statement  his  Lordship  in  general  terms  desig- 
nated the  territory  to  which  her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment was  entitled  as  being  embraced  within 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  105 

the  lines  of  the  most  extreme  claim  which  she 
had  at  any  time  presented.  He  added : 

A  portion  of  that  claim,  however,  they  have 
always  been  willing  to  waive  altogether ;  in  regard 
to  another  portion  they  have  been  and  continue 
to  be  perfectly  ready  to  submit  the  question  of 
their  title  to  arbitration.  As  regards  the  rest, 
that  which  lies  within  the  so-called  Schomburgk 
line,  they  do  not  consider  that  the  rights  of  Great 
Britain  are  open  to  question.  Even  within  that 
line  they  have  on  various  occasions  offered  to 
Venezuela  considerable  concessions  as  a  matter 
of  friendship  and  conciliation  and  for  the  purpose 
of  securing  an  amicable  settlement  of  the  dispute. 
If,  as  time  has  gone  on,  the  concessions  thus 
offered  have  been  withdrawn,  this  has  been  the 
necessary  consequence  of  the  gradual  spread  over 
the  country  of  British  settlements,  which  Her 
Majesty's  Government  cannot  in  justice  to  the 
inhabitants  offer  to  surrender  to  foreign  rule. 

In  conclusion  his  Lordship  asserts  that  his 
Government  has 

repeatedly  expressed  their  readiness  to  submit  to 
arbitration  the  conflicting  claims  of  Great  Britain 
and  Venezuela  to  large  tracts  of  territory  which 


106  THE  VENEZUELAN 

from  their  auriferous  nature  are  known  to  be  of 
almost  untold  value.  But  they  cannot  consent  to 
entertain,  or  to  submit  to  the  arbitration  of  an- 
other power  or  of  foreign  jurists  however  emi- 
nent, claims  based  on  the  extravagant  pretensions 
of  Spanish  officials  in  the  last  century  and  in- 
volving the  transfer  of  large  numbers  of  British 
subjects,  who  have  for  many  years  enjoyed  the 
settled  rule  of  a  British  colony,  to  a  nation  of 
different  race  and  language,  whose  political  sys- 
tem is  subject  to  frequent  disturbance,  and  whose 
institutions  as  yet  too  often  afford  very  inade- 
quate protection  to  life  and  property. 

These  despatches  exhibit  a  refusal  to  admit 
such  an  interest  in  the  controversy  on  our  part 
as  entitled  us  to  insist  upon  an  arbitration  for 
the  purpose  of  having  the  line  between  Great 
Britain  and  Venezuela  established;  a  denial  of 
such  force  or  meaning  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
as  made  it  worthy  of  the  regard  of  Great  Brit- 
ain in  the  premises;  and  a  fixed  and  continued 
determination  on  the  part  of  her  Majesty's 
Government  to  reject  arbitration  as  to  any 
territory  included  within  the  extended  Schom- 
burgk  line.  They  further  indicate  that  the 
existence  of  gold  within  the  disputed  territory 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  107 

had  not  been  overlooked;  and  they  distinctly 
put  forward  the  colonization  and  settlement  by 
English  subjects  in  such  territory,  during  more 
than  half  a  century  of  dispute,  as  creating  a 
claim  to  dominion  and  sovereignty,  if  not 
strong  enough  to  override  all  question  of  right 
and  title,  at  least  so  clear  and  indisputable  as  to 
be  properly  considered  as  above  and  beyond  the 
contingencies  of  arbitration. 

If  we  had  been  obliged  to  accept  Lord  Salis- 
bury's estimate  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  and 
his  ideas  of  our  interest,  or  rather  want  of  in- 
terest, in  the  settlement  of  the  boundary  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  Venezuela,  his 
despatches  would  have  certainly  been  very  de- 
pressing. It  would  have  been  unpleasant  for 
us  to  know  that  a  doctrine  which  we  had  sup- 
posed for  seventy  years  to  be  of  great  value 
and  importance  to  us  and  our  national  safety 
was,  after  all,  a  mere  plaything  with  which  we 
might  amuse  ourselves ;  and  that  our  efforts  to 
enforce  it  were  to  be  regarded  by  Great  Britain 
and  other  European  nations  as  meddlesome  in- 
terferences with  affairs  in  which  we  could  have 
no  legitimate  concern. 

The   reply   of   the   English   Government   to 


IOS  THE  VENEZUELAN 

Mr.  Olney's  despatch,  whatever  else  it  accom- 
plished, seemed  absolutely  to  destroy  any  hope 
we  might  have  entertained  that,  in  our  changed 
position  in  the  controversy  and  upon  our  inde- 
pendent solicitation,  arbitration  might  be  con- 
ceded to  us.  Since,  therefore,  Great  Britain 
was  unwilling,  on  any  consideration,  to  coop- 
erate with  Venezuela  in  setting  on  foot  an  in- 
vestigation of  their  contested  claim,  and  since 
prudence  and  care  dictated  that  any  further 
steps  we  might  take  should  be  proved  to  be  as 
fully  justified  as  was  practicable  in  the  circum- 
stances, there  seemed  to  be  no  better  way  open 
to  us  than  to  inaugurate  a  careful  independent 
investigation  of  the  merits  of  the  controversy, 
on  our  own  motion,  with  a  view  of  determining 
as  accurately  as  possible,  for  our  own  guid- 
ance, where  the  divisional  line  between  the  two 
countries  should  be  located. 

Mr.  Olney's  despatch  and  Lord  Salisbury's 
reply  were  submitted  to  the  Congress  on  the 
seventeenth  day  of  December,  1895,  accompa- 
nied by  a  message  from  the  President. 

In  this  message  the  President,  after  stating 
Lord  Salisbury's  positions  touching  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine,  declared : 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  109 

Without  attempting  extended  argument  in  re- 
ply to  these  positions,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to 
suggest  that  the  doctrine  upon  which  we  stand 
is  strong  and  sound,  because  its  enforcement  is 
important  to  our  peace  and  safety  as  a  nation,  and 
is  essential  to  the  integrity  of  our  free  institutions 
and  the  tranquil  maintenance  of  our  distinctive 
form  of  government.  It  was  intended  to  apply  to 
every  stage  of  our  national  life,  and  cannot  be- 
come obsolete  while  our  Republic  endures.  If 
the  balance  of  power  is  justly  a  cause  for  jealous 
anxiety  among  the  governments  of  the  Old  World 
and  a  subject  for  our  absolute  non-interference, 
none  the  less  is  the  observance  of  the  Monroe 
Doctrine  of  vital  concern  to  our  people  and  their 
Government. 


Speaking  of  the  claim  made  by  Lord  Salis- 
bury that  this  doctrine  had  no  place  in  interna- 
tional law,  it  was  said  in  the  message:  'The 
Monroe  Doctrine  finds  its  recognition  in  those 
principles  of  international  law  which  are  based 
upon  the  theory  that  every  nation  shall  have  its 
rights  protected  and  its  just  claims  enforced." 

Referring  to  the  request  contained  in  Mr. 
Olney's  despatch  that  the  entire  boundary  con- 


1 10  THE  VENEZUELAN 

troversy  he  submitted  to  arbitration,  the  fol- 
lowing language  was  used: 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  correspondence  here- 
with submitted  that  this  proposition  has  been 
declined  by  the  British  Government  upon  grounds 
which  in  the  circumstances  seem  to  me  to  be  far 
from  satisfactory.  It  is  deeply  disappointing 
that  such  an  appeal,  actuated  by  the  most  friendly 
feelings  toward  both  nations  directly  concerned, 
addressed  to  the  sense  of  justice  and  to  the 
magnanimity  of  one  of  the  great  powers  of  the 
world,  and  touching  its  relations  to  one  compara- 
tively weak  and  small,  should  have  produced  no 
better  results. 

The  course  to  be  pursued  by  this  Government 
in  view  of  the  present  condition  does  not  appear 
to  admit  of  serious  doubt.  Having  labored  faith- 
fully for  many  years  to  induce  Great  Britain  to 
submit  their  dispute  to  impartial  arbitration,  and 
having  been  finally  apprised  of  her  refusal  to  do 
so,  nothing  remains  but  to  accept  the  situation,  to 
recognize  its  plain  requirements,  and  deal  with  it 
accordingly.  Great  Britain's  present  proposition 
has  never  thus  far  been  regarded  as  admissible 
by  Venezuela,  though  any  adjustment  of  the 
boundary  which  that  country  may  deem  for  her 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  m 

advantage  and  may  enter  into  of  her  own  free 
will  cannot,  of  course,  be  objected  to  by  the 
United  States.  Assuming,  however,  that  the 
attitude  of  Venezuela  will  remain  unchanged,  the 
dispute  has  reached  such  a  stage  as  to  make  it 
now  incumbent  upon  the  United  States  to  take 
measures  to  determine  with  sufficient  certainty 
for  its  justification  what  is  the  true  divisional  line 
between  the  Republic  of  Venezuela  and  British 
Guiana.  The  inquiry  to  that  end  should,  of 
course,  be  conducted  carefully  and  judicially;  and 
due  weight  should  be  given  to  all  available  evi- 
dence, records,  and  facts  in  support  of  the  claims 
of  both  parties. 


After  recommending  to  the  Congress  an  ade- 
quate appropriation  to  meet  the  expense  of  a 
commission  which  should  make  the  suggested 
investigation  and  report  thereon  with  the  least 
possible  delay,  the  President  concluded  his 
message  as  follows : 

When  such  report  is  made  and  accepted,  it  will, 
in  my  opinion,  be  the  duty  of  the  United  States  to 
resist  by  every  means  in  its  power,  as  a  wilful  ag- 
gression upon  its  rights  and  interests,  the  appro- 


112  THE  VENEZUELAN 

priation  by  Great  Britain  of  any  lands  or  the 
exercise  of  governmental  jurisdiction  over  any 
territory  which  after  investigation  we  have  deter- 
mined of  right  belongs  to  Venezuela. 

In  making  these  recommendations  I  am  fully 
alive  to  the  responsibility  incurred,  and  keenly 
realize  all  the  consequences  that  may  follow. 

I  am,  nevertheless,  firm  in  my  conviction  that 
while  it  is  a  grievous  thing  to  contemplate  the  two 
great  English-speaking  peoples  of  the  world  as 
being  otherwise  than  friendly  competitors  in  the 
onward  march  of  civilization,  and  strenuous  and 
worthy  rivals  in  all  the  arts  of  peace,  there  is  no 
calamity  which  a  great  nation  can  invite  which 
equals  that  which  follows  a  supine  submission  to 
wrong  and  injustice,  and  the  consequent  loss  of 
national  self-respect  and  honor,  beneath  which 
are  shielded  and  defended  a  people's  safety  and 
greatness. 

The  recommendations  contained  in  this  mes- 
sage were  acted  upon  with  such  promptness 
and  unanimity  that  on  the  twenty-first  day  of 
December,  1895,  four  days  after  they  were 
submitted,  a  law  was  passed  by  the  Congress 
authorizing  the  President  to  appoint  a  com- 
mission "to  investigate  and  report  upon  the 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  113 

true  divisional  line  between  the  Republic  of 
Venezuela  and  British  Guiana,"  and  making  an 
ample  appropriation  to  meet  the  expenses  of  its 
work. 

On  the  first  day  of  January,  1896,  five  of 
our  most  able  and  distinguished  citizens  were 
selected  to  constitute  the  commission ;  and  they 
immediately  entered  upon  their  investigation. 
At  the  outset  of  their  labors,  and  on  the  fif- 
teenth day  of  January,  1896,  the  president  of 
the  commission  suggested  to  Mr.  Olney  the 
expediency  of  calling  the  attention  of  the  Gov- 
ernments of  Great  Britain  and  Venezuela  to 
the  appointment  of  the  commission,  adding: 
"It  may  be  that  they  would  see  a  way  entirely 
consistent  with  their  own  sense  of  international 
propriety  to  give  the  Commission  the  aid  that 
it  is  no  doubt  in  their  power  to  furnish  in  the 
way  of  documentary  proof,  historical  narra- 
tive, unpublished  archives,  or  the  like."  This 
suggestion,  on  its  presentation  to  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Great  Britain,  was  met  by  a  most 
courteous  and  willing  offer  to  supply  to  our 
commission  every  means  of  information  touch- 
ing the  subject  of  their  investigation  which 
was  within  the  reach  of  the  English  authori- 


U4  THE  VENEZUELAN 

ties;  and  at  all  times  during  the  labors  of 
the  commission  this  offer  was  cheerfully 
fulfilled. 

In  the  meantime,  and  as  early  as  February, 
1896,  the  question  of  submitting  the  Venezue- 
lan boundary  dispute  to  mutual  arbitration  was 
again  agitated  between  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain. 

Our  ambassador  to  England,  in  a  note  to 
Lord  Salisbury,  dated  February  27,  1896,  after 
speaking  of  such  arbitration  as  seeming  to  be 
"almost  unanimously  desired  by  both  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,"  proposed, 
in  pursuance  of  instructions  from  his  Govern- 
ment, "an  entrance  forthwith  upon  negotia- 
tions at  Washington  to  effect  this  purpose,  and 
that  Her  Majesty's  Ambassador  at  Washing- 
ton should  be  empowered  to  discuss  the  ques- 
tion at  that  capital  with  the  Secretary  of  State." 
He  also  requested  that  a  definition  should  be 
given  of  "settlements"  in  the  disputed  territory 
which  it  was  understood  her  Majesty's  Gov- 
ernment desired  should  be  excluded  from  the 
proposed  submission  to  arbitration. 

Lord  Salisbury,  in  his  reply  to  this  note, 
dated  March  3,  1896,  said: 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  115 

The  communications  which  have  already  passed 
between  Her  Majesty's  Government  and  that  of 
the  United  States  have  made  you  acquainted  with 
the  desire  of  Her  Majesty's  Government  to  bring 
the  difference  between  themselves  and  the  Repub- 
lic of  Venezuela  to  an  equitable  settlement.  They 
therefore  readily  concur  in  the  suggestion  that 
negotiations  for  this  purpose  should  be  opened  at 
Washington  without  unnecessary  delay.  I  have 
accordingly  empowered  Sir  Julian  Pauncefote  to 
discuss  the  question  either  with  the  representa- 
tive of  Venezuela  or  with  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  acting  as  the  friend  of  Venezuela. 

With  this  transfer  of  treaty  negotiations  to 
Washington,  Mr.  Olney  and  Sir  Julian  Paunce- 
fote, the  ambassador  of  Great  Britain  to  this 
country,  industriously  addressed  themselves  to 
the  subject.  The  insistence  of  Great  Britain 
that  her  title  to  the  territory  within  the 
Schomburgk  line  should  not  be  questioned, 
was  no  longer  placed  by  her  in  the  way  of  sub- 
mitting the  rights  of  the  parties  in  the  entire 
disputed  territory  to  arbitration.  She  still  in- 
sisted, however,  that  English  settlers  long  in 
the  occupancy  of  any  of  the  territory  in  con- 
troversy, supposing  it  to  be  under  British  do- 


Il6  THE  VENEZUELAN 

minion,  should  have  their  rights  scrupulously 
considered.  Any  difference  of  view  that  arose 
from  this  proposition  was  adjusted  without  se- 
rious difficulty,  by  agreeing  that  adverse  hold- 
ing or  prescription  during  a  period  of  fifty 
years  should  make  a  good  title,  and  that  the 
arbitrators  might  deem  exclusive  political  con- 
trol of  a  district,  as  well  as  actual  settlement, 
sufficient  to  constitute  adverse  holding  or  to 
make  title  by  prescription. 

On  the  loth  of  November,  1896,  Mr.  Olney 
addressed  a  note  to  the  president  of  the  com- 
mission which  had  been  appointed  to  investi- 
gate the  boundary  question  on  behalf  of  our 
Government,  in  which  he  said :  "The  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  are  in  entire  accord 
as  to  the  provisions  of  a  proposed  treaty  be- 
tween Great  Britain  and  Venezuela.  The 
treaty  is  so  eminently  just  and  fair  as  re- 
spects both  parties — so  thoroughly  protects  the 
rights  and  claims  of  Venezuela — that  I  cannot 
conceive  of  its  not  being  approved  by  the  Vene- 
zuelan President  and  Congress.  It  is  thor- 
oughly approved  by  the  counsel  of  Venezuela 
here  and  by  the  Venezuelan  Minister  at  this 
Capital."  In  view  of  these  conditions  he  sug- 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  117 

gested  a  suspension  of  the  work  of  the 
commission. 

The  treaty  was  signed  at  Washington  by  the 
representatives  of  Great  Britain  and  Vene- 
zuela on  the  second  day  of  February,  1897. 
No  part  of  the  territory  in  dispute  was  reserved 
from  the  arbitration  it  created.  It  was  dis- 
tinctly made  the  duty  of  those  appointed  to 
carry  out  its  provisions,  "to  determine  the 
boundary-line  between  the  Colony  of  British 
Guiana  and  the  United  States  of  Venezuela." 

The  fact  must  not  be  overlooked  that,  not- 
withstanding this  treaty  was  promoted  and  ne- 
gotiated by  the  officers  of  our  Government,  the 
parties  to  it  were  Great  Britain  and  Vene- 
zuela. This  was  a  fortunate  circumstance,  in- 
asmuch as  the  work  accomplished  was  thus 
saved  from  the  risk  of  customary  disfigure- 
ment at  the  hands  of  the  United  States  Senate. 

The  arbitrators  began  their  labors  in  the 
city  of  Paris  in  January,  1899,  and  made  their 
award  on  the  third  day  of  October  in  the 
same  year. 

The  line  they  determined  upon  as  the  boun- 
dary-line between  the  two  countries  begins  in 
the  coast  at  a  |x>int  considerably  south  and 


Ii8  THE  VENEZUELAN 

east  of  the  mouth  of  the  Orinoco  River,  thus 
giving  to  Venezuela  the  absolute  control  of 
that  important  waterway,  and  awarding  to  her 
valuable  territory  near  it.  Running  inland,  the 
line  is  so  located  as  to  give  to  Venezuela  quite 
a  considerable  section  of  territory  within  the 
Schotnburgk  line.  This  results  not  only  in  the 
utter  denial  of  Great  Britain's  claim  to  any 
territory  lying  beyond  the  Schomburgk  line, 
but  also  in  the  award  to  Venezuela  of  a  part 
of  the  territory  which  for  a  long  time  England 
had  claimed  to  be  so  clearly  hers  that  she 
would  not  consent  to  submit  it  to  arbitration. 

Thus,  we  have  made  a  laborious  and  patient 
journey  through  the  incidents  of  a  long  dis- 
pute, to  find  at  last  a  peaceful  rest.  As  we 
look  back  over  the  road  we  have  traversed,  and 
view  again  the  incidents  we  have  passed  on  our 
way,  some  may  be  surprised  that  this  contro- 
versy was  so  long  chronic,  and  yet,  in  the  end, 
yielded  so  easily  to  pronounced  treatment.  I 
know  that  occasionally  some  Americans  of  a 
certain  sort,  who  were  quite  un-American  when 
the  difficulty  was  pending,  have  been  very  fond 
of  lauding  the  extreme  forbearance  and  kind- 
ness of  England  toward  us  in  our  so-called 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  119 

belligerent  and  ill-advised  assertion  of  Ameri- 
can principle.  Those  to  whom  this  is  a 
satisfaction  are  quite  welcome  to  it. 

My  own  surprise  and  disappointment  have 
arisen  more  from  the  honest  misunderstanding 
and  the  dishonest  and  insincere  misrepresen- 
tation, on  the  part  of  many  of  our  people, 
regarding  the  motives  and  purposes  of  the  in- 
terference of  the  Government  of  the  United 
States  in  this  affair.  Some  conceited  and  dog- 
gedly mistaken  critics  have  said  that  it  was 
dreadful  for  us  to  invite  war  for  the  sake  of  a 
people  unworthy  of  our  consideration,  and  for 
the  purpose  of  protecting  their  possession  of 
land  not  worth  possessing.  It  is  certainly 
strange  that  any  intelligent  citizen,  professing 
information  on  public  affairs,  could  fail  to  see 
that  when  we  aggressively  interposed  in  this 
controversy  it  was  because  it  was  necessary  in 
order  to  assert  and  vindicate  a  principle  dis- 
tinctly American,  and  in  the  maintenance  of 
which  the  people  and  Government  of  the 
United  States  were  profoundly  concerned.  It 
was  because  this  principle  was  endangered,  and 
localise  those  charged  with  administrative  re- 
sponsibility would  not  abandon  or  neglect  it. 


120  THE  VENEZUELAN 

that  our  Government  interposed  to  prevent  any 
further  colonization  of  American  soil  by  a  Eu- 
ropean nation.  In  these  circumstances  neither 
the  character  of  the  people  claiming  the  soil 
as  against  Great  Britain,  nor  the  value  of  the 
lands  in  dispute,  was  of  the  least  consequence 
to  us;  nor  did  it  in  the  least  concern  us  which 
of  the  two  contestants  had  the  best  title  to  any 
part  of  the  disputed  territory,  so  long  as  Eng- 
land did  not  possess  and  colonize  more  than 
belonged  to  her — however  much  or  however 
little  that  might  be.  But  we  needed  proof 
of  the  limits  of  her  rights  in  order  to  determine 
our  duty  in  defense  of  our  Monroe  Doctrine; 
and  we  sought  to  obtain  such  proof,  and  to 
secure  peace,  through  arbitration. 

But  those  among  us  who  most  loudly  repre- 
hended and  bewailed  our  vigorous  assertion  of 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  were  the  timid  ones  who 
feared  personal  financial  loss,  or  those  engaged 
in  speculation  and  stock-gambling,  in  buying 
much  beyond  their  ability  to  pay,  and  generally 
in  living  by  their  wits.  The  patriotism  of 
such  people  traverses  exclusively  the  pocket 
nerve.  They  are  willing  to  tolerate  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine,  or  any  other  patriotic  principle, 


BOUNDARY  CONTROVERSY  121 

so  long  as  it  does  not  interfere  with  their  plans, 
and  are  just  as  willing  to  cast  it  off  when  it 
becomes  troublesome. 

But  these  things  are  as  nothing  when 
weighed  against  the  sublime  patriotism  and  de- 
votion to  their  nation's  honor  exhibited  by  the 
great  mass  of  our  countrymen — the  plain 
people  of  the  land.  Though,  in  case  of  the  last 
extremity,  the  chances  and  suffering  of  con- 
flict would  have  fallen  to  their  lot,  nothing 
blinded  them  to  the  manner  in  which  the  in- 
tegrity of  their  country  was  involved.  Not 
for  a  single  moment  did  their  Government 
know  the  lack  of  their  strong  and  stalwart 
support. 

I  hope  there  are  but  few  of  our  fellow-citi- 
zens who,  in  retrospect,  do  not  now  acknowl- 
edge the  good  that  has  come  to  our  nation 
through  this  episode  in  our  history.  It  has  es- 
tablished the  Monroe  Doctrine  on  lasting  foun- 
dations before  the  eyes  of  the  world :  it  has 
given  us  a  letter  place  in  the  respect  and  con- 
sideration of  the  people  of  all  nations,  and  es- 
I>ecially  of  Great  Britain  ;  it  has  again  confirmed 
our  confidence  in  the  overwhelming  prevalence 
among  our  citizens  of  disinterested  devotion 


122  THE  VENEZUELAN 

to  American  honor ;  and  last,  but  by  no  means 
least,  it  has  taught  us  where  to  look  in  the 
ranks  of  our  countrymen  for  the  best 
patriotism. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


CENTRAL  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
University  of  California,  San  Diego 

DATE  DUE 


JUN  18  y/7 

JAN  19  W7 

Cl  39 

UCSD  Libr. 

001  115  300 


